Public Bill Committee

[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]

Clause 57

The Young Peoples Learning Agency for England

Amendment moved (this day): 423,in schedule 7, page 172, line 15, at end insert
( ) Where the transfer results in a substantial change of terms and conditions, by the new employer or the previous employer pre-transfer, that are to the material detriment of the transferee, this will be seen as a breach of contract by the employer..(Jeff Ennis.)

Jeff Ennis: On behalf of the Committee, Mrs. Humble, I would like to welcome you back to the Chair for this afternoons interesting sitting.
As members of the Committee will recall, we had just started examining schedule 7, and I was referring to the fact that members of staff who are likely to transfer away from the Learning and Skills Council were a bit anxious about the security of their follow-on employment. I was about to quote from an e-mail that I had received from one of my constituents, which sums up very eloquently the position that the staff find themselves in. I will read out the salient parts of the e-mail:
Dear Mr. Ennis...As a member of staff currently employed by the LSC, I can expect to transfer to the YPLA, the SFA or a local authority... The bill will not result in a straightforward case of abolishing one organisation and transferring staff to two or three new bodiessome 3,300 LSC staff will be affected, and up to 1,000 may transfer to 150 local authorities. Given the complexity of these arrangements it is imperative that the terms of the transfer and their likely impact upon staff terms and conditions are placed beyond doubt.
There is no doubt in my mind, Mrs. Humble, that staff, when they are affected by a change and have to move on from one organisation to another, are faced with quite a challenge at a worrying time. That is why I have tabled amendment 423, which seeks reassurance from Ministers that all the staff involved will be treated very sensitively regarding the transfer of undertakings for public employees and so on. I will leave it at that for now.

Annette Brooke: Good afternoon, Mrs. Humble.
I, too, have received representations from a constituent and at this stage I would just like to make some points on their behalf. I am equally concerned about what is not in schedule 7 and I hope that the Minister will be able to throw some light on matters.
There is obviously deep concern that all TUPE arrangements will remain in place, which is what one would normally expect in situations such as this one. Employees of the Learning and Skills Council, and others who are affected, need some reassurances from this afternoons debate. Apart from obvious concerns about continuity of service, pay and conditions, there are additional concerns about pensions and how they will be affected. I support this probing amendment, because what we need are full assurances that what might be expected to be in place, with this very large transfer of staff, truly is in place.

Siôn Simon: A very good afternoon to you, Mrs. Humble, and to everybody else.
I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) for her contribution; she is as assiduous as ever on behalf of her constituents. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) for his contribution. He is famous in this place for the energy and assiduity with which he works on behalf of his constituents; he is their champion. It therefore comes as no surprise that he has taken this opportunity in an otherwise rather mundane afternoon in Committee to bring these matters to our attention.
I sympathise with the intention behind my hon. Friends amendment and with the comments by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, and I am grateful to them for raising this issue. I know that it is one that the Public and Commercial Services Union is anxious about. My ministerial colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners, and I have had several conversations with the PCS directly about this issue. One of the principles guiding the two Departments in the transfer of responsibilities is the retention of the expertise that the new bodies will require to deliver outcomes for young people and adults. To that end, we have made a commitment in writing that the Cabinet Office statement of practiceCOSOPand a fair deal for pensions will inform and guide our approach to a complex TUPE-like transfer. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to restate that on the record. Nevertheless, the amendment would be technically difficult to implement. Who would judge detriment, for example? What does substantial mean? What would happen if it were after the transfer and so on? While I am sure that we could debate those elusive finer points for hours, the best thing to say is to note the strength of feeling shown by Members today and in representations from outside.

Annette Brooke: I think that I heard what the Minister said, but I wish to be doubly sure that the staff transfer orders will fully comply with the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers. I am not sure whether the Minister said that fully.

Siôn Simon: I did say that, but I had not gone on to make my main point, which is that the strength of representations, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough but also from the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and others, has given me cause to think again. Although I will ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment, I intend to return on Report with another view, having taken the advice of our departmental lawyers and counsel. I hope that the hon. Lady is satisfied with my hon. Friends successful afternoon, and I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Jeff Ennis: As ever, I am really pleased with the Ministers response, and I thank him for his patience and indulgence. I am glad that the issue has been placed on the record and that we will look at it again on Report. Thanks to the Ministers encouraging remarks, I have pleasure in saying that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8

Sixth form college sector

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 28, in schedule 8, page 175, line 21, leave out from that to end of line 24 and insert
(a) it is reasonable to classify the institution as a sixth form college.
Schedule 8 and clause 122 establish sixth-form colleges as a distinct legal category. The rationale, from the policy set out in the impact assessment, is as follows:
Ministers want to recognise the strength of SFCs and their contribution to the education of young people by identifying the SFC sector as a distinct legal category.
That means enabling the sixth-form college sector of 94 colleges to be split off from other further education colleges and be divided up between the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. That is all very important and bureaucratic, which is the view of the Association of School and College Leaders:
We are concerned...that the changes for sixth form colleges will bring about a significant increase in bureaucracy for both colleges and local authorities.
The Association of Colleges, too, is mildly anxious:
Sixth Form Colleges will be small in number...within a Department which includes approximately 25,000 schools and nurseries but we hope Ministers and officials in DCSF are able to devote sufficient attention to their work and ensure they flourish.
Amendment 28 would amend the definition of a sixth-form college. At present, proposed new section 33B of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which would be inserted under schedule 8, defines a sixth-form college as a college where
at least 80 per cent. of its total enrolment number will be persons over compulsory school age but under 19.
That means that a college where, for example, 75 per cent. of students are within the age range would no longer qualify, which seems unnecessarily heavy-handed. Our amendment would change the definition to one in which
it is reasonable to classify the institution as a sixth form college.
I am sure that the figure of 80 per cent. was just plucked out of the air, so I urge Ministers to consider our more reasonable amendment to define a sixth-form college and how it should be distinguished from a regular further education college.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am pleased to welcome you back to the Chair this afternoon, Mrs. Humble, on my first opportunity to do so in Committee this week.
In answer to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, the threshold for the designation of new sixth-form colleges is based on the age range of those colleges that currently identify themselves as sixth-form colleges. It certainly has not been plucked out of thin air. Of all the sixth-form colleges, only three have less than 80 per cent. of full-time equivalent students aged over 16 years and under 19. It was in fact a threshold that came out of existing colleges that identify themselves as sixth-form colleges and provide predominantly for young people over 16 but under 19. The majority of those colleges have at least 80 per cent. of their full-time equivalent students within that age range.
In our view, the threshold protects the essential nature of the sixth-form college sector providing mainly for those over 16 and under 19. It also gives a clear steer about eligibility to further education colleges that might consider applying for sixth-form college status in the future. The threshold is generally supported by representatives of the sixth-form college sector as a firm indicator of the main criterion for sixth-form college status. I am worried that, if accepted, the amendment would introduce doubt and confusion into the system.
Colleges in the FE sector have become more diverse since they were first incorporated as FE colleges under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. They admit a wider range of students and serve broader communities than may have been the case in the past. Many colleges would therefore be unclear about when they have grounds for applying to become sixth-form colleges and what might be considered reasonable. I am concerned that that uncertainty might destabilise the FE system generally, and that would not be in the interests of all colleges and learners.
For the record, I should point out that the Sixth Form Colleges Forum is broadly supportive of the new arrangements, because it thinks that there is more coherence in having local authorities, which are primarily responsible for the strategic direction of schools, having responsibility for the major direction of sixth-form colleges. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: The sixth-form colleges have expressed concern to me through their briefing that, because the mere 94 sixth-form colleges are among 25,000 schools and nurseries, they may not receive the attention that their importance requires. Moreover, the Minister said that three of those 94 sixth-form colleges will not constitute sixth-form colleges according to the definition. Will she therefore say what will happen to the three sixth-form colleges where it is not the case that 80 per cent. of students are over 16 and under 19 years? What would happen if a sixth-form college had applied to be a sixth-form college and had more than 80 per cent. of students in that bracket once it had applied, but then it dipped below the 80 per cent. requirement the following year? Would that lead to its being disqualified? If there is to be a de minimis period during which the colleges can drop below 80 per cent., how long would it be and what would be the consequences if, at the end of that time, the sixth-form college was still at, say, 79 per cent.?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The reason for the inclusion of the three colleges that are below 80 per cent. is that they designate themselves as sixth-form colleges. They are part of the Sixth Form Colleges Forum, so they are very much part of the family of sixth-form colleges. That is why they will be included in the first tranche, in the one-off order, when they will be invited to take sixth-form college status.
The other question was about whether sixth-form colleges feel that they would be swamped with all the other responsibilities of the Department for Children, Schools and Families. I would strongly refute that. The separate designation for sixth-form colleges means that they will get the attention that they need, while remaining independent corporations.
Once colleges are designated as sixth-form colleges, they remain with that designation. We are looking to the future, when FE colleges want to move into the sixth-form college sector. There is a review period of five yearswe shall come to that when we debate another amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehamptonduring which changes can be made, and that is designed to retain stability in the sector.

Nick Gibb: I am encouraged that the three colleges identified by the Minister as not falling within the definition have been invited to join the sixth-form college sector. It is probably entirely reasonable for those colleges to be included in the sixth-form college sector, since they do not paint themselves as sixth-form colleges. However, that falls within the definition in the amendment, that it should be reasonable in all circumstances to judge that a college is a sixth-form college. However, having made the argument, which the Minister has in some ways vindicated, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 29, in schedule 8, page 176, line 43, leave out subsection (3).
As drafted, proposed new section 33D of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which schedule 8 inserts, prevents sixth-form colleges from applying to the Secretary of State for redesignation as FE colleges for five years following classification as a sixth-form college. We touched on that issue in a previous debate, but that period seems to be unnecessarily arbitrary and restrictive. I doubt that colleges will swing back and forth between sectors every other year or month, so I cannot see the need for the provision, which may well present a barrier in some circumstances. Amendment 29 simply removes subsection (3) of proposed new section 33D. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, would she explain why the period of five years has been selected?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: As I touched on in my response to the previous amendment, the restriction on the application to redesignate is designed to ensure the stability of the sector. It does not prevent applications for a change of status if a college considers itself better placed in the other sector, but it controls the timing, so that multiple applications to change status do not interfere with the good governance of both sectors. Local authorities and the Skills Funding Agency need some assurance about the institutions that they would be performance managing. The sectors themselves would want a clear view of which colleges are in membership. Our view is that a five-year gap between applications allows colleges time to focus on their core business.
If there was no restriction on the change of status, there would be a danger that that would encourage short-term vision and erode distinctions between the sectors. The worst-case scenarioI do not believe it would happen but it is a possibilityis that a college might attempt to move between sectors in pursuit of perceived short-term gain rather than long-term strategy. That would confuse other colleges, employers and those parents and students who wanted to make use of the college.
We discussed our proposals for the designation of sixth-form colleges with representatives from the college sector. We are clear that they want stability and clear and defined processes for designation, to be able to plan their business. A period of stability, which does not prevent a college from changing its status at some future point if it feels that its core mission has changed, is essential to making a success of the changes that the Bill is introducing. For those reasons, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb: There would not have been instability if there had not been a split into two DepartmentsDIUS and DCSF. This anti-instability measure has become necessary because of the bureaucratic decision to split the Governments role between two Departments. However, I am reassured by the Ministers response and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 76, in schedule 8, page 177, line 16, after of, insert and available for.
This is a probing amendment to determine whether sixth-form colleges can recruit pupils from the age of 14. Able youngsters take their GCSEs ever earlier and may wish to proceed to A-levels when they are younger than 15. Proposed new section 33E(1), which will be inserted into the Higher Education Act 1992 by the schedule, states that a sixth-form college may do a number of things. Paragraph (b) states that it may
provide secondary education suitable to the requirements of persons who have attained the age of 14.
That is a little ambiguous. On first reading, it implies that the college can provide GCSE courses.
My question, which was prompted by the Association of School and College Leaders, is whether sixth-form colleges can enrol students from the age of 14. The amendment would insert the words and available for so that the paragraph states that sixth-form colleges may provide secondary education suitable to the requirements of and available for persons who have attained the age of 14. Clarification from the Minister on this point would be very helpful.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am happy to clarify this matter for the hon. Gentleman. Proposed new section 33E will re-enact for sixth-form colleges the existing powers of FE colleges; these are not new powers. Colleges can accept pupils from the age of 14. We are concerned that accepting the amendment would imply that colleges should routinely accept pupils aged 14 to 16. We do not believe that they should. However, we think that they should have that flexibility. The schedule gives sixth-form colleges the flexibility to offer additional provision at the margins, while allowing them to focus on the core provision for 16 to 19-year-olds that so many students and their parents want. I hope that I have given sufficient comfort to the hon. Gentleman and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful clarification, which I am sure will be heard outside the House. I am sure that the ASCL will find it helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 363, in schedule 8, page 185, leave out lines 16 to 31.
The amendment would remove the ability of local education authorities to appoint members to the governing body of a sixth-form college. Sixth-form colleges, like FE colleges, are at the centre of their communities, and it is important that, like FE colleges, they are allowed to respond to the needs of those communities. It is imperative that that responsiveness is based on independence and flexibility.
FE colleges have independent governing bodies, which they are extremely keen to keep. However, as the 157 Group and the Association of Colleges pointed out in their evidence, the new chief executive of Skills Funding will have the power to appoint governors to FE governing bodies. The responsiveness of FE colleges means that they are in tune with economic demand and the choices and aptitudes of learners. We are not keen that they should be beholden to the needs of LEAs.
We feel the same about sixth-form colleges. They require the same kind of flexibility and responsiveness. There may be a misunderstanding about sixth-form colleges, although not on your part, Mrs. Humble, or on the part of well-informed Committee members. More widely, people might assume that sixth-form colleges are more like school sixth forms than they are. Many sixth-form colleges teach a variety of things to a variety of learners. Their work is much more varied and is characterised by the flexibility that I have described.
The amendment is designed to ensure that while LEAs keep their commissioning role and powers of intervention, the governors of sixth-form colleges remain independent. Is there not already sufficient oversight in these institutions without a member of the LEA sitting on their boards? The amendment is supported by the Sixth Form Colleges Forum, which argued in written evidence that
The Sixth Form Colleges Forum is concerned that Sixth Form Colleges retain their current independence and ability to provide education appropriate to the needs of their communities on the same basis as their FE colleagues.
The Minister will know that sixth-form colleges are in the same network as FE collegesthey are members of the Association of Colleges and so on.
The amendment also allays the worries of the AOC that
local authorities will limit student choice by seeing sixth-form colleges as very much more local than they currently are in their recruitment. We hope that local authorities will in no way become proprietorial about their sixth-form colleges and try to limit their places to students within their boundaries.
That reinforces my point about sixth-form colleges being more wide ranging in the diet that they offerboth in content and in the kind of students that they typically teach. We must ensure that sixth-form colleges can retain this independent spirit, for the welfare of the students and the interest of the communities that they serve. To place two LEA members on a small governing body seems an excessive involvement of local authorities and it does not appear to be supported on any evidential basis. I have heard nothing to suggest that sixth-form colleges are typically badly governed. Perhaps the Minister knows otherwise and will make the Committee aware of any evidence she has.
Sixth-form colleges are already providing an excellent education for a wide range of students with a wide range of subjects. We cannot and should not restrict their ability to perform this vital function in the way that they wish in the future. The amendment is therefore tabled in that spirit and we anticipate the Ministers response with interest.

Annette Brooke: I want to make a few comments. It is a matter of getting the right balance. Things are going to change, and funding arrangements have been going through local authorities. However, I appreciate the hon. Gentlemans comments about independence, which is very much valued. However, it is important that new relationships are forged in the new situation. At this stage, I am not against the proposal that a local authority may perform a duty. It is critical that whatever happens should come out of a true partnership. I await the Ministers comments.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: There is a bit of a misunderstanding. The power that may enable an LEA to appoint two governors is nothing knew. It is replicating an existing power under section 11 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, which gave the Learning and Skills Council the power to appoint up to two persons to be members of the governing body of a further education sector institution in England. Schedule 6 of this Bill gives that power to the SFA to appoint to governing bodies of FE colleges.
We are not singling out sixth-form colleges and it is for the local authority to decide how it should use the powers. It does not require the local education authority to appoint a governor to the governing body of a sixth form. It could be used, if it were used at all, in a number of circumstances. It could build and bring additional capacity to a governing body if the local authority identified the need for particular expertisesay in finance or building. However, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, it is important that it is done in the spirit of partnership and that the power provides the means for that partnership to exist.

John Hayes: Does the LSC routinely appoint two governors, and does the Minister expect LEAs to do so?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The LSCs power has never been used in respect of sixth-form colleges, although I understand that there have been instances where such colleges have requested support. None the less, that power is there, and we have replicated that power, as the hon. Gentleman said, with the SFA.

John Hayes: My amendment was meant to be a probing one, but I am becoming increasingly concerned. We are saying that the power has never been used, that we are building into a new law a power that was passed previously but never acted on, and now we are building into the changed structure. That is a bit curious, is it not?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I disagree. We are looking at local authorities taking a strategic role, and looking across all the provision, be it in a school sixth form or a sixth-form college. I do not think that it is unreasonable for either the sixth-form sector or the FE sector to do that. We are talking about two governors, which will have a minor impact on the membership of a governing body. It is certainly not the intention for a local authority to take control of a sixth-form college that is an independent institution; it would not be able to do so. The measure is not related to the intervention process that is set out in section 56E in any way. We should also remember that any governor appointed has a collective responsibility and owes a duty to the governing body, not to the local authority. As I said, they are not new powers, but elements of existing relationships that sixth-form colleges have with the LSC. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes: That was an odd response. We are discussing powers that have never been used and a power that the Minister does not expect to be used, yet we are putting it into law. My instinct about such laws is that they should probably be struck from the statute book. Do we not have all kinds of laws that are never implemented? One wonders why the Government want to perpetuate that kind of legal inactivity. Legislative inaction is not a good basis on which to frame what we do. I am doubtful about all that; clearly, the sixth-form college sector itselffrom the representations that we have received, which I amplified in my few brief wordsis doubtful about it. But as I do not want to delay the Committee further, even though I am not entirely satisfied with what we have heard, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 6Communication with sixth form colleges
(1) In considering whether to issue any guidance or other circular to the governing bodies or principals of sixth form colleges in the exercise of functions relating to education, the Secretary of State and the relevant local education authority shall have regard to
(a) the desirability of providing information about good educational practice, while recognising the professional expertise of college staff,
(b) the benefits that are expected to result from the issue of the guidance or other circular, and
(c) the desirability of avoiding
(i) the sending of excessive material to governing bodies or principals, and
(ii) the imposition of excessive administrative burdens on governing bodies or principals.
(2) In pursuance of the duty in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall in respect of each academic year
(a) prepare a report listing
(i) documents sent by him or a local education authority during the year to all governing bodies of sixth form colleges in England or to all principals of such colleges, and
(ii) documents (not falling within sub-paragraph (i)) sent by him during the year to all governing bodies of sixth form colleges in England of a particular kind or to all principals of such colleges of a particular kind, and
(b) lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament, and include within it comparative statistics in respect of each of the two preceding academic years on documents falling within this subsection sent out by him.
(3) Each document issued by the Secretary of State or a local education authority and falling within subsection (2)(a)(i) shall list within it previous relevant documents issued by the Secretary of State or a local education authority and shall state clearly those documents which are superseded by the current document.
(4) Each document issued by the Secretary of State or local education authority and falling within subsection (2)(a)(i) or (ii) shall state clearly the persons for whom any advice and guidance is intended.
(5) In this section academic year means a period beginning with 1 August and ending with the next 31 July..

Nick Gibb: The purpose of the new clause is to try to keep tabs on and minimise the quantity of material, guidance, circulars and lever-arch files that are sent by the Department for Children, Schools and Families to sixth-form colleges. The wording mirrors an amendment tabled by my late noble Friend Baroness Blatch in another place during the passage of the Education Act 2002.
When the Secretary of State is considering issuing guidance or any other circular, he or she should have regard, first, to the desirability of providing information about good educational practice, while taking into account the professional expertise of college staff. He or she should take into account the benefits that are expected to result from issuing the guidance, the undesirability of sending excessive material to colleges and the imposition of excessive administrative burdens. The problem with all the material that is sent is that it may or may not be useful, but to determine whether it is, the principal must read it all. As I tour schoolsthe same amendment could be applied to schools, franklyI see the insecurity of many teachers when they glance at their supply cupboard and see an unopened lever-arched file that was sent six months earlier by the DCSF. It can undermine the confidence of teachers if too much material is sent. It is far better to keep the material succinct, short and infrequent, just conveying the key imperatives of Government policy for raising standards. We researched the quantity of information sent to schools and it amounted to as much text as the complete works of Shakespearesent every year to schools in this country.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is saying that schools receive a volume of instruction or diktat that is equivalent to the works of Shakespeare, when students do not get a chance to learn Shakespeare. Is that the gist of it?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Too often in English literature lessons students do not devour the whole play but only excerpts from it and worksheets are used. It is a pity that in too many schools that is how Shakespeare is taught.
This is a serious new clause because the bureaucratic burden imposed on schools and colleges is a major issue raised with hon. Membersit certainly is with me when I visit schools around the country. It would be good to hear the Ministers reaction to this new clause and what she intends to do as a Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and Families about trying to reduce this burden.

Annette Brooke: I agree with the sentiments behind the new clause; I do not think anybody could fail to, certainly not when we hear reports from schools about the excessive burden on them. I have a faint concern that we will just be generating more paperwork and more reports, and perhaps losing focus on what we are all trying to do, by the time we get a full report of that in Parliament.
Apart from growing like Topsy, it is important to think how to cut bureaucracy and the administrative burden so that all our educational establishments can concentrate on those things on which they are meant to focus. I am also concerned that the excessive amount of paperwork means that important messages can be missed. It is the classic communication problem that when a lot of information is buzzing around, something important can be overlooked. I have great sympathy with everything in the new clause, but I am not sure about its practical implications.
The schedule clearly makes the point that the Secretary of State will give authority for new sixth-form provision. Backtracking to clause 122, as I understand it that authority is taken away from local authorities. I seek clarification from the Minister on that. Let us suppose that a reorganisation of schools leads an authority to move to 11-to-16 schools and sixth-form colleges, having previously had all-through schools. As I understand it, the local authority would put its plan together and submit it to the Secretary of State. How would that be different from the way in which an authority tackles that situation now?

John Hayes: As we are having a general debate about the schedule, I want to add amplification on the status of sixth-form colleges. They are anxious that they will be treated in their governance more like schools than colleges. Their existing relationship with the FE college sector is significant and valuable, leading to an exchange of ideas and expertise across FE and sixth-form colleges; it reflects what they do. As I said, many sixth-form colleges have a wide brief, dealing with a range of learners. There is a concern, which has been expressed to the Committeecertainly to its Opposition membersthat the Bill changes some of that. It is important that the Minister puts on the record that the Government remain committed to sixth-form colleges independence and ability to respond to their local communities in a creative, innovative way that is free from unnecessary diktat. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister for Schools and Learners has arrived.
Reducing the bureaucratic burden on schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton so eloquently argued, is essential if we are to free teachers to devote their time, energy and efforts to the interests of learners, rather than dancing to the tune of politicians and bureaucrats.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I, too, am in favour of any action that reduces bureaucracy in the FE system and allows sixth-form colleges and local authorities to get on with the important business of meeting the countrys challenges for learning. Therefore, I am sympathetic to the intention behind new clause 6. However, we are making significant headway in reducing bureaucracy without needing further legislation. Significantly, most publications are no longer sent to principals and chairs of governing bodies, but are available online. We use our electronic FE newsletter and many representative bodies to alert college staff to key documents. Of course, effective communication is dependent on the quality and presentation of the content.
The sector-led FE communications gateway panel has developed clear guidelines on producing effective publications, and it acknowledges the improvement in the drafts that it now receives from DCSF and the Learning and Skills Council. The bureaucracy reduction group has the key strategic role to scrutinise and challenge any aspects of policy implementation that result in excessive material or administrative burdens. For example, it has successfully challenged the Government on the burdens of Train to Gain documentation. It will challenge DIUS and DCSF on the implications for colleges day-to-day work of establishing the Skills Funding Agency and the Young Peoples Learning Agency, but we know that we can do more.
With the establishment of the YPLA and the transfer of responsibility for 16-to-19 provision to local authorities, we have an opportunity to streamline communications further while encouraging the sector to challenge where necessary. Both DIUS and the DCSF will ensure that the SFA and the YPLA submit their draft publications, such as funding guidance, to the panel. In addition, the establishment of the YPLA will draw on the work of the information authority, which was established to set and regulate standards. Using IT and sharing data effectively will be central to the core functions of the YPLA and its work with partners in the 16-to-19 system.
The Merits Committee has reviewed the cumulative impact of statutory instruments on schools. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners has made commitments to work towards a school commencement date of 1 September to review lead times, with a view to ensuring that there is a one-term lead time for statutory instruments that directly affect schools in 2010, and to continue improving the accessibility of communications to schools, website rationalisation and the clarity of bi-weekly e-mail and, possibly, to provide a single web portal for schools.

John Hayes: I am most interested. The bureaucracy reduction group has an Orwellian ring; it is like the ministry of truth. But the Government would not need a ministry of truth if they mainly told it, would they? Who is on this bureaucracy reduction group? What is its budget? How many staff does it have? What kind of bureaucracy does it have? It is extraordinary. I would love to hear more about it; it sounds most exciting.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am sure that it does, but Mrs. Humble would not allow me to stray into

Bill Wiggin: Do try. Mrs. Humble is very patient.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I can write to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings with the details. Given the work that we are doing to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on schools, I hope that the Opposition will not press the new clause to a Division.
Hon. Members asked a couple of questions about the schedule in general. I can inform the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that the Government are committed to the independent status of sixth-form colleges; I am happy to put that on the record. Sixth-form colleges do not have to take up the designation. They can remain as they are if they wish. The one-off is an invitation for them to take up this status if they wish. Nobody is forcing anything on FE or sixth-form colleges. It is entirely up to them which route they take.
To answer the question put by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, if there is a change of school status, local authorities will have to publish their proposal locally. On the establishment of sixth-form colleges, the local authoritys proposal will go to the Secretary of State, whereas currently, or until the Bill is enacted, it goes to the Learning and Skills Council.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 8 accordingly agreed to.

Clauses 123 and 124 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9

The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation

David Laws: I beg to move amendment 50, in schedule 9, page 190, line 22, leave out Secretary of State and insert Crown.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 197, in schedule 9, page 190, line 23, after members), insert
one of whom shall be a member of another regulatory body,.
Amendment 529, in schedule 9, page 190, line 24, at end insert
(2A) The Order in Council in sub-paragraph (1)(a) must be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament..
Amendment 51, in schedule 9, page 190, line 25, leave out The Secretary of State may appoint and insert The ordinary members shall elect.
Amendment 198, in schedule 9, page 190, line 29, at end insert
(4) The chair and chief executive of Ofqual shall be full-time positions..
Amendment 385, in schedule 9, page 191, line 7, at end insert
(c) failure to ensure the standard of regulated qualifications is maintained..
Amendment 40, in schedule 9, page 191, line 14, at end insert
(2A) An ordinary member must not have financial or other occupational interests that might be regarded as constituting a conflict of interest with that of promoting the objectives of Ofqual..
Amendment 52, in schedule 9, page 191, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert
(4) The ordinary members, by majority vote, may remove the deputy from office if they think it appropriate to do so..
Amendment 530, in schedule 9, page 191, line 17, after office, insert of deputy.
Amendment 53, in schedule 9, page 191, line 19, leave out The Secretary of State and insert
The ordinary members, by majority vote,.
Amendment 420, in schedule 9, page 191, line 23, at end insert
(c) failure to ensure the standard of regulated qualifications is maintained..
Amendment 417, in schedule 9, page 191, line 42, at end insert
(5) All payments made under this paragraph shall be published annually together with the contracts of employment and pension arrangements of the Chief Regulator and the ordinary members..
Amendment 418, in schedule 9, page 192, line 2, leave out first.
Amendment 54, in schedule 9, page 192, line 2, leave out the Secretary of State and insert Ofqual.
Amendment 55, in schedule 9, page 192, line 3, leave out the Secretary of State and insert Ofqual.
Amendment 415, in schedule 9, page 192, line 3, at end insert
( ) The Secretary of State may remove the Chief Executive from office if the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so..
Amendment 416, in schedule 9, page 192, line 3, at end insert
( ) The terms of the conditions of service of the Chief Executive, including all refunds of expenses incurred by the Chief Executive in carrying out his duties shall be published annually..
Amendment 419, in schedule 9, page 192, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Amendment 57, in schedule 9, page 192, line 7, leave out the Secretary of State and insert
the Select Committee for Children, Schools and Families of the House of Commons..
Amendment 58, in schedule 9, page 192, leave out line 10 and insert
Select Committee for Children, Schools and Families of the House of Commons..
Amendment 56, in schedule 9, page 192, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
Amendment 59, in schedule 9, page 192, leave out lines 28 to 33.

David Laws: Thank you, Mrs. Humble. We come to one of the more interesting parts of the Bill. Some people outside this place have suggested that the Bill has been pulled together by the Government from a rag-bag of policy odds and ends that have been hanging around for some time, to create a sense that the Government have some momentum in education, rather a sense of a Government in their last year who are perhaps running out of momentum and direction in education. However, I think that that is not entirely fair, because two important parts to the Billparts 7 and 8are both important and controversial. Those parts have attracted a large number of amendmentssome 200about half of which were tabled by the two Opposition parties, with the Government tabling about 100, which may be a comment on something. We will reflect on what that something is later.

Nick Gibb: Is the hon. Gentleman not being unfair in criticising the Government for being at the end of their period in office and running out of steam when they have created, according to the Minister, a single portal for schools, website clarification and, of course, the bureaucracy reduction group?

David Laws: Yes, perhaps I am, or perhaps those outside this place are being unfair and not giving the bureaucracy taskforce the credit that it deserves. We look forward to receiving the Ministers letter to find out how much credit it deserves.
Schedule 9 introduces the Ofqual part of the debate. With your tolerance and willingness, Mrs. Humble, you will understand that it will be sensible for me to make some opening comments on why this part of the Bill and amendments 50, 51 and so on are so important. They touch on the schedule that makes provision for the constitution and governance of Ofqual, which are matters of fundamental importance. It is necessary to reflect on the reasons why Ofqual has come into existence, why it is so important that that body is seen to be properly independent of Ministers, and whether the terms in which that independence is framed are adequate for the job that Ministers require Ofqual to do. I assume that you will want us, Mrs. Humble, to have a schedule 9 stand part debate as part of the debate on the amendments, though obviously you will indicate if you are not happy with that.
I emphasise the importance of schedule 9. I have been responsible for my partys education portfolio for the past couple of years, and it has become obvious to me that one of the problems in discussing education policy is that it is very difficult to get any sense of agreement among the individuals and groups that have an interest in education policy, even on what has happened to standards in the past 10 or 20 years. The Government are entitled to point to statistics indicating that there has been some improvement in examination results, particularly in the past decade, but others, including academic researchers, suggest that, if anything, standards have declined, and that young people, including those who go on to universities, are not as well educated as in the past. There are a great many anecdotal reports of universities and other bodies instituting additional catch-up courses for new students to compensate for the educational standards that, according to those institutions, prevail today.
The Government have responded in some ways to such concerns by introducing schedule 9, which is so important in determining the governance and independence of Ofqual. When the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families announced the establishment of Ofqual at the Labour party conference in September 2007, he acknowledged the scale of the problem with which the Government, through this schedule, are trying to deal. He said:
We have not managed to persuade the public, parents and employers about the standards of exams. The more Ive looked at this the more Ive concluded that there are...problems that require reform.
He then announced that a new body would be responsible for the oversight of standards and that it would be properly independent from the Government and seek to end the annual debate and uncertainty about exam standards, which usually occurs around August and September, when many of the most important exam results are announced.
It is a great pity that in pulling those proposals and measures together, the Government have ignored some of the advice from the relevant Select Committee and elsewhere that reflects the debate on educational standards, as well as what has happened to those standards and the need for more objective reporting of them. We will obviously discuss that issue when we debate clause 125, but it is worth reflecting upon present concerns, both in and outside Parliament, about the degree of autonomy that Ofqual will have, which relates directly to schedule 9.
The Secretary of State gave a number of undertakings on Second Reading. He suggested initially that Ofqual would be an independent regulator of standards; we will return to the meaning of that later. He sounded some alarm bells, however, when he spoke of the Governments view of the nature of Ofquals independence and of their expectations of the new body. He said:
We have to get away from this ridiculous, damaging and draining debate about dumbing down, when, whenever standards go up and teachers and young people have worked hard, some politicians and commentators jump up and say, This must be because standards have been dumbed down. That is not fair, and it is not right. Rather than my making such assurances about standards, it will be much better when Ofqual, the independent regulator, makes such assurances to the public and to families.[Official Report, 23 February 2009; Vol. 488, c. 27.]
The Secretary of State did not say that Ofqual was going to be an independent commentator that would often criticise the Government and comment upon standards that might have declined. Whether he meant to say it or not, what he actually said was that it would be Ofqual that would give assurances about standards each year. That betrays the Governments intentions in setting up the new body. Ofqual has not been made as independent as it should be, as we will show in our amendments. There is still a great deal of potential for the Secretary of State to influence it and there are concerns about how it will carry out its responsibilities. We will come on to that, too, later.

Nick Gibb: I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentlemans excellent introduction to the amendments. I do not believe that the cause of concern is just that one-off statement in the House by the Secretary of State. All the subsequent letters we have received from Ministers confirm my view that establishing Ofqual is actually about public relations and telling the public that standards are high, rather than ensuring that standards are high. That is our principal concern about the way Ofqual has been established.

David Laws: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is interesting to note that in the September 2007 interview with the Secretary of State in The Daily Telegraph in which the announcement was trailed, the right hon. Gentleman was very explicit about a loss of confidence among the public regarding standards. However, I noticed that when the Minister for Schools and Learners gave his evidence to the Committee a couple of weeks ago, he was very clear that there had been no dumbing-down at all and that standards were as high as they had ever been.
It is dangerous for Ministers to set up a body that is charged with ensuring confidence in standards and to then pre-empt the conclusions of that body. To be fair to the Secretary of State, on Second Reading, after he made those comments about Ofqual giving assurances about standards each year, he said that he was
not going to second-guess its work. That is Ofquals remit and responsibility, and it should get on with that work.[Official Report, 23 February 2009; Vol. 488, c. 27.]
unhinderedmy word, not the Secretary of States. We will reflect on that as we discuss the amendments to schedule 9.
The Governments attitude to Ofqual is important; the way that Ofqual discharges its responsibilities is also important. Early indications of how it has operated since it was established in shadow mode are not entirely reassuring. When we took evidence from Kathleen Tattersall a few weeks ago, we encountered great reticence about commenting on the standards debate over examination results in the last 10 or 20 years. That does not indicate that Ofqual will build the reputation for impartiality that is necessary to its gaining the confidence of the public and education professionals.
The Committee should consider also the comments that Ofqual made during and just after the utter shambles of marking key stage 2 and key stage 3 tests last year. It was very quick to say that, on the basis of the evidence it had seen, the quality of marking was at least as good as in previous years. That comment was made before the recent report on the number of reviews of key stage 2 and key stage 3 test results, which showed not only an explosion in the number of appeals against the marking of those tests, but a very high level of the appeals being upheld. The combination of a quadrupling of appeals with a very high rate of upholding those appeals indicates to me that there were question marks about the quality of marking last year. It makes me nervous that Ofqual should be so quick to jump to conclusions before even seeing the results of the appeals process.
We are arguing for a far more independent educational standards authorityone that is not only capable of regulating the existing approved qualifications, but able and empowered to make judgments about standards that do not rely only on looking at the existing qualifications themselves. We know that that is an important ongoing debate because we have the comments of Mike Cresswell and others from the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance about the risk there will be to the credibility of standards when the new modular GCSEs come in. He suggests that results are likely to improve because of the introduction of modular GCSEs in a way that is not related to the underlying standards. If we do not get Ofqual and the basis for its independence correct now, we will have problems in the future.
As I mentioned, schedule 9 deals with the constitution of Ofqual and touches on its independence. We are disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken to give more independence to Ofqual in the way that key staff members are selected, in how it operates, and in questions of accountability. There has been an increasing amount of debate in this place over the past five or 10 years about the important role that Select Committees should play in holding bodies such as Ofqual to account. However, schedule 9 and part 7 miss a number of opportunities to introduce that accountability, not only to the Secretary of State, but to a cross-party Select Committee that might help to preserve a greater element of independence in the way that Ofqual discharges its responsibilities.
As briefly as possible, I would like to go through some of the amendments to schedule 9 tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. If the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will allow me, to save time I would also like to indicate those amendments tabled by him that we particularly support, as well as a couple that appear to cut against our argument in favour of a greater degree of independence.
Amendment 50 would remove the power of the Secretary of State directly to appoint the seven to 12 ordinary members of the Ofqual board. There must be a serious concern about how independent we can expect the board of Ofqual to be if it is appointed entirely, or almost entirely, by the Secretary of State. There is a strong argument for Crown appointments to the Ofqual board, in order to try and institutionalise a greater degree of independence in the way that members of the body are chosen. The individuals on the board, the chief executive and the way that Ofqual discharges its responsibilities will make all the difference to whether the body is an effective monitor of standards or a lapdog of the Secretary of State on a tight leash. It is vital to ensure that we have a process that properly selects members to be on the board of Ofqual.
Amendment 51 would remove the power of the Secretary of State directly to appoint the deputy chair of Ofqual; instead, it would place that power with the ordinary members of the Ofqual board. It is not obvious why the Secretary of State should take it upon himself not only to have powers in relation to the chair, the chief executive and the ordinary members of Ofqual, but to dictate and determine who is the deputy chair. Those are important appointments and we think that a greater degree of independence should prevail.
Amendment 52 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to dismiss the deputy chair of Ofqual; it would instead place that power with the ordinary members of the Ofqual board. At the moment, schedule 9 gives the Secretary of State power to remove the deputy chair of Ofqual if he thinks that that is appropriate. That seems an extraordinarily far-ranging power to give the Secretary of State. The power is poorly defined and surely unnecessary if Ofqual is to be genuinely independent of the Government in the way that the Secretary of State indicated when he first made the announcement in September 2007 and when he repeated his undertakings about independence in the House of Commons on Second Reading.
Amendment 53 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to dismiss the ordinary members of the Ofqual board and place that power with the fellow members of the Ofqual board. The Bill as drafted gives powers to the Secretary of State to remove members of the Ofqual board if they are unfit to carry out their responsibilities or if they are absent. It seems very odd indeed that the Secretary of State should have to get involved in circumstances where a board member is absent for a prolonged period. It seems entirely sensible that the Ofqual board itself should deal with that. There also seems to be no reason why the Ofqual board cannot carry out a policing responsibility in relation to the fitness of members of the board to discharge their responsibilities.
Amendment 54 would allow Ofqual the power to appoint its own chief executive, rather than have that individual chosen by the Secretary of State. Clearly, if Ofqual is to be regarded as an independent body, that is a fundamentally important power. At the moment, the fear is that the Secretary of State will use many of the powers set out in schedule 9 to select people who are likely to have a particular view in the standards debate and who are likely to echo the type of complacency about standards that we have heard from Ministers in general over the past few years.
In our view, it is vital that the individuals who are on the Ofqual board and the key officers of Ofqual, including the chief executive, should be as independent and as independent-minded as possible. Even if the individuals who are selected are independent-minded, there is a serious concern that if the Secretary of State takes to himself these powers, which we have discussed in relation to earlier amendments, to dismiss individuals in the rather cavalier and light-touch way that is allowed for in schedule 9, it might restrict the willingness of the individuals on the board and the senior officers to act in a way that is as independent and as impartial as we would want.
Amendment 55 would allow Ofqual the power to set conditions of service for its own first chief executive, rather than have them dictated by the Secretary of State. Again, if the Secretary of State really wants Ofqual to be seen to be an independent body and to manage its own affairs, as he indicated on Second Reading, it is astonishing that he should take to himself powers in these areas.
Amendment 57 would remove the power to approve the appointment and conditions of Ofqual chief executives from the Secretary of State and give it to the Children, Schools and Families Committee. That comes back to the point I made earlier about the importance of having mechanisms of accountability in this place that do not simply rely on the political leadership of the Department, which potentially has incentives to put pressure on Ofqual to say the right things and be consistent with what the Government are saying about the standards debate.
I think that amendment 58 has not only our support, but potentially that of the interim chair of Ofqual herself. It would take the power to approve the number of staff members at Ofqual, their conditions of service and their remuneration away from the Secretary of State and give that line of accountability to the Children, Schools and Families Committee. If Ofqual is to be as independent as the Secretary of State suggested only a few weeks ago in the House, it is extraordinary that paragraph 6(5) of schedule 9 gives the Secretary of State the power to approve
the number of members of staff of Ofqual...their conditions of service
and
the amount of remuneration, allowances and expenses paid to them.
In the note that was sent to the Committee before the evidence session with Kathleen Tattersall, Ofqual said:
The Bill sets out a role for the Secretary of State in the set up and appointment processes for Ofqual, for example in relation to the appointment of the ordinary members... I understand that the proposed Ministerial involvement in appointments is in line with arrangements for many other regulators, although I would expect the Chair of Ofqual to be fully consulted. In my view the requirement for Ministerial approval of such matters as numbers of staff and terms and conditions (Schedule 9, paragraph 6(5)) is more questionable.
Ofqual is clearly concerned about the powers in the schedule that insist on the Secretary of States approval even for matters such as the number of staff and their terms and conditions. That suggests a degree of micro-management that is surely not necessary.
Amendment 59 would remove the duty on Ofqual to review its committees every five years. It would be sensible of Ofqual to review its committees and to do other things relatively regularly, but it is beyond me why the Secretary of State should use the Bill to direct and micro-manage Ofqual in quite that way. That suggests an unwillingness on the part of the Secretary of State to accept that this body will be properly independent.
I will touch on a couple of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. We support amendments 385 and 420, which would make more explicit the duty to maintain the standard of regulated qualification. We will come back to that issue under clause 125. We also support amendments 416 and 417, which deal with openness on pay and pensions. Although we want Ofqual to have the flexibility and freedom to determine its own priorities, it should be held publicly accountable on some of these key issues and it must be transparent. Recently, there has been evidence of great profligacy in the public sector over the levels of pay and pensions. I am not talking only about this place.
As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton might expect from my earlier comments, we have less sympathy with amendments 418 and 415. Amendment 418 would give the Secretary of State the power to appoint the head of Ofqual and amendment 415 would allow the Secretary of State to sack the chief executive of Ofqual on the basis that it is appropriate to do so. Just as it is wrong that the deputy at Ofqual can be dismissed in such a cavalier way, it would be dangerous to accept amendment 415. It would be dangerous to give the Secretary of State the power to get rid of the chief executive of Ofqual when the chief executive might say things that are not in favour of the Secretary of State or criticise the Governments activities in relation to standards and the dumbing-down debate.
We have serious concerns about whether the Government are delivering on their promise that Ofqual will have genuine independence and be accountable to Parliament rather than just to the Secretary of State. We fear that unless some changes are made, there is a serious risk that from day one Ofqual will be seen to be not fully independent and autonomous. It will therefore not secure the reputation that it needs for the debate on standards to be resolved in the way that we all want.

Nick Gibb: It is a pleasure to follow the clear exposition by the hon. Member for Yeovil of the Liberal Democrat position regarding Ofqual in general and schedule 9 in particular. I agreed with some of his comments and I am pleased he agreed with some, although not all, of our amendments.
Clause 124 and schedule 9 would establish the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation. We have long advocated making the regulatory side of the QCA independent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said when he was shadow Education Secretary:
Reform of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is one such positive step. It is not acceptable that the QCA, the guardian of our exams, is not independent of the Government.
By Government, we mean not just Ministers but all those who are paid directly or indirectly by the taxpayer to produce and administer exams or who are paid by the taxpayer to train our teachers to teach pupils and students to pass exams. Essentially, Government means all those who have control or strong influence over the direction of education policy and who receive their income from the state. In other words, Ofqual needs to be independent, not just of the Department for Children, Schools and Families but the education establishment, which by definition is as important in determining the direction of education policy, the structure of our assessment system and the variation in standards over the years as any Government Minister.
Sir Michael Barber points out in his seminal book, Instruction to Deliver:
Officials in the Department tried desperately to block
the announcement of a national literacy strategy.
He went on to say:
While the civil service was not party political, it was heavily influenced by the various lobby groups who competed for influence in the Department which thus tended to see issues from the producer angle...Moreover, the lack of ambition which characterised the education service as a whole inevitably affected the Department too.
When that lack of ambition is combined with an ideological approach to education that is Rousseauian in nature, child-centred in ideology, equivocal about the acquisition of knowledge, hostile to rote learning and testingall of which have increasingly dominated thinking in the education establishment over the past half centuryone sees the importance of ensuring the independence of Ofqual from that education establishment. Leaving aside the ideology, it is clearly in the interests of everyone in the education establishment for Ofqual to pronounce that standards in exams are as high today as they were 10 or 20 years ago and to pronounce that exam standards in any given year are as high as they were the previous year. They have a vested interest in Ofqual asserting that view. All their work, their approach, and their philosophy would be undermined if Ofqual were to say otherwise. Ensuring that Ofqual is completely independent of the education establishment and the producer interest is even more important than its independence from the Minister for Schools and Learners, the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, and the Secretary of State. There is no understanding of that point in the drafting of the Bill.
Over the past few years a huge amount of independent academic research has demonstrated that exam standards have fallen. Over the same period, the regulatory wing of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has consistently claimed that there has been no such decline, even while others in the QCA have acknowledged widening access to those same exams. Peter Tymms at CEMthe centre for evaluation and monitoringat the University of Durham has demonstrated that a student who obtained an E in A-level maths in 1998 would have been awarded a B in 2004. Duncan Lawson of the University of Coventry tested students mathematical competence on entry to university and found that those entering with a grade B in 2001 established a slightly lower level of competency in basic skills than those entering with a grade N 10 years earlier. Professor Peter Williams said in the Observer in July 2007:
Over 20 or 30 years, I do not think there is any doubt whatsoever that absolute A-level standards have fallen. They have edged south continuously over a long period of time. I think all university academics and a good proportion of sixth-form teachers would agree with my assertion.
That same Observer article also cited a wider study carried out at the centre for evaluation and monitoring in Durham. The article said:
For nearly two decades up to 50,000 pupils a year have taken the same ability test before facing A-levels. Researchers found that, in most subjects, pupils of the same ability achieved two grades higher in their A-levels in 2006 than in 1988, jumping to three grades in maths.
That is the A-level information system, or ALIS, test, which CEM introduced in 1983.
I could go on and cite much more evidence, Mrs. Humble, but I will not try your patience or that of the Committee. Although my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings has departed from the Committee for a short while, I do not wish to replace him in that regard.

Jeff Ennis: I know that this is one of the hon. Gentlemans main campaign themes, as it were, which he pursues in the House on a regular basis. If we have had this grade inflation over the years, can he explain to me why we have not had a similar grade inflation for the degrees that are awarded at university? I ask the question because it appears to me that, if the students are getting worse by achieving lower A-levels or they are not rising to the same academic standard at A-level, there would be a consequential knock-on effect in the degrees that are awarded by our universities. I think that the reverse has happened. We have also seen a certain amount of inflation with degrees awarded by our universities, which seems to underline the fact that students are getting better rather than worse.

Nick Gibb: A book that I regard as the set text on this subject is The Schools We Need and Why We Dont Have Them by E.D. Hirsch, who is an American academic and has a chapter dealing with precisely that argument.
I think that the answer to the hon. Gentlemans question is twofold. First, a lot of universities are now implementing remedial classes for students, even high-calibre students coming with very high grades and A-levels, to bring them up to the level that they need to start their university course. Secondly, I am afraid to saythis is an issue that really concerns Conservative members of the Committeethat the proportion of students from the independent sector taking places at some of the top universities is increasing and that concerns us more than anything else in this whole debate about education. It is not that we have anything against the independent sectorquite the contrarybut it is alarming that the state sector is declining in the proportion of students from that sector going to Oxford and Cambridge, despite huge efforts to counter any possible prejudice that there might be in either of those universities.
What concerns me is the response by Ofqual to the evidence that I was just citing. Evidence has been around for a long time about a concern that has been prevalent and, indeed, growing for many years. Ofqual was informally established in early 2008, following an announcement by the Secretary of State in September 2007. Before that, the regulatory division of the QCA was responsible for regulating qualifications and maintaining standards, ever since the QCA was established in 1997. However, when the chairman of interim Ofqual, Kathleen Tattersall, was questioned in an evidence session by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, the following exchange took place. My hon. Friend asked:
Does Ofqual believe that there is grade inflation in A-levels and GCSEs?
Kathleen Tattersall replied:
Ofqual will take the evidence that it has and that comes to its attention to make any pronouncement, one way or the other, on issues of that kind. That is something that we have not particularly explored and I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to come to a view without full consideration of the evidence.
Why is that something that Ofqual has not particularly explored? When my hon. Friend asked if, in future, Ofqual would be exploring that issue, he received another evasive answer from Kathleen Tattersall, who said:
What we will be doing as a regulator is looking at the evidence, particularly where there are any issues of public concern. If that issue is a matter of public concern, clearly we will be seeking evidence on it, but there are a range of other issues where our starting point would always be to look at the evidence and to come to a considered judgment on the evidence.
Why have the QCA and Ofqual not been looking at the evidence, including that of Peter Williams, the Durham evidence, and that of Duncan Lawson, Jonathan Ramsey and John Corner? What did Kathleen Tattersall mean when she said:
If that issue is a matter of public concern?
When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, her response was:
Ofqual has been set up to regulate the system, to get better public accountability for the system, to ensure that there is a better public understanding of the issues and to assure public confidence. That is what regulators do. I do not think that it has been set up to address any specific concerns, such as the one that was just mentioned.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 70, Q182-184.]
It is depressing that she should say that Ofqual was not set up to assess standards over time or to address public concerns over grade inflations, but to ensure better public understanding of the issues and to assure public confidencein other words to proselytise and to persuade the public that all is well with the system, but not to take evidence or examine whether standards have been maintained.
The answers by the chairman of Ofqual were not a slip of the tongue. The exact same use of words and phrases appears throughout her evidence in response to questions about standards. They are carefully crafted, rehearsed and considered replies, but there is one slip:
When you asked me about looking at grade inflation, I should have said that several studies that have been conducted over the years involving international experts looking at our system have concluded that there is grade inflation.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 81, Q214.]
When I quoted that to the Minister, she responded:
I presume that you are taking that Kathleen Tattersall quote from Hansard. She did not say that. We have asked for Hansard to be corrected.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2009; c. 156, Q350.]

Hansard is still as I quoted it on 10 March. I am concerned by the we in the Ministers response. Surely Kathleen Tattersall could ask for Hansard to be correctednot the Minister or the Ministers officials? I am afraid that it is all too cosy. There is a desperation not to admit to a decline in standards. The chair of Ofqual refuses point blank to admit that there has been grade inflation, despite masses of evidence to the contrary, and refuses to admit that there is even public concern about grade inflation. Ofqual has been in place sufficiently long for it to have taken the evidence and pursued the issue, but it has done no such thing. It seems to see its role as assuring the public and telling them what the issues are, rather than listening to the public and being told by them what the issues are. I do not believe that Ofqual as currently configured will deliver consistent standards in our qualifications system, because I do not believe that it considers that to be its role. However, it should be, and to ensure that Ofqual does see that as its role we need to amend its objectives, which is a debate for the next clause.
We also need to ensure that the right people are appointed to the boardpeople who are independent of, rather than cosy with, Government, and people who are independent of the education establishments. Amendment 197 requires the board to have one member who is a member of another regulatory body. We need to be sure that Ofqual uses the same principles and approaches as other regulatory bodies, including the same rigorous approach to data collection and analysis. Amendment 198 requires the chief regulator and the chief executive to be full-time positions. That is an additional safeguard to avoid conflict and it also ensures that Ofquals role is taken seriously. It is not just a PR role; it is a huge job that requires application to reverse the trends in our exam system.
It is not good enough to say, as Kathleen Tattersall did, that
wherever there are conflicts of interest we will also look for ways in which they can be managed.
There must be no conflicts of interest, which is why amendment 40 amends schedule 9 to prevent anyone with a financial or occupational interest that might conflict with the objectives of Ofqual from serving on its board. Greg Watson, the chief executive of Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations said:
Yes, absolutely. It is important, equally, that Ofqual is independent from those that it regulates.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 64-65, Q171 and 174.]
Anyone who is a lecturer or professor at a teacher training institution, any serving teacher or head teacher, anyone involved with exam boards or publishers of school textbooks, anyone working for a local education authority and any current or past civil servant or Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and Families should not be able to serve on the board of Ofqual. All those people have a vested interest in demonstrating that exam standards have not fallen over that period, even if they have done so. There is a need for expertise in assessments and academia, but care needs to be taken to ensure that people with that knowledge do not have a reputational or other interest in demonstrating that the UK exam system has maintained its standards over the years.
Amendment 385 adds a third reason as to why or when the chief regulator can be removed from office. Paragraph 3(7) of schedule 9 currently gives two such reasons, including
inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of office
and unauthorised absence from Ofquals meetings for six months. The amendment adds
failure to ensure the standard of regulated qualifications is maintained.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Yeovil supports that amendment, because we might well test the Committees opinion. It is important that the legislation is clear that a key role of the chief regulator is to ensure the standards of regulated qualifications are maintained. The same additional grounds for removal from office are added by amendment 420.
Amendment 417 seeks to introduce transparency into the payment of public officials, by ensuring that all details of their contracts of employment are published in each annual report, including pension arrangements. Similarly, amendment 416 ensures that the same information is published for the chief executive, together with all details of expense payments.
Amendments 418 and 419 change schedule 9 so that the Secretary of State appoints not just the first chief executive of Ofqual, but subsequent ones. Amendment 415 gives the Secretary of State the power to fire the chief executive. Schedule 9 already gives the Secretary of State power to remove the chief regulator, but we believe that the power should extend to the chief executive as well. It is important in a democracy that those held accountable to the public for manifesto promises and for the quality of public services have powers to remove senior people responsible for the delivery of those public services, if they are not delivering what they should be, which is higher standards.
Ministers should also have the power to appoint people to those positions. That does not mean that Ministers will or should be able to interfere inappropriately. There are clear demarcation lines set out in the Bill and elsewhereif a Minister seeks to interfere in, say, lowering the grade boundaries or getting more pupils to achieve a pass or A grade, the chief regulator would be perfectly within his right to refuse and could well go public with the fact if such an attempt had been made. However, it is important that the Secretary of State has the power to remove people who are clearly not delivering the key objective of maintaining standards in our exam system.

David Laws: I understand the hon. Gentlemans views, although I do not agree. If he is not going to go on to discuss this, does he feel that the Government ought to be micro-managing other areas, such as the regularity with which the committees are reviewed, the number of staff or their terms and conditions? Or does he share some of the views expressed not only by me but by Kathleen Tattersall in her note to the Committee?

Nick Gibb: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentlemans point about the micro-detail, such as how often to review the committee structure of Ofqual. If it is being held to account for its performance, it needs to be given as much leeway as possible to carry out its role. Having said that, there is a role for Ministers in ensuring that such non-departmental public bodies do not empire-build and expand the number of employees within their remit without recourse to the Secretary of State who is, after all, responsible to Parliament and the public for how our taxes are spent. It is important that a firm grip is kept on the number of people employed.

David Laws: Is not that necessary oversight exercised through budget control?

Nick Gibb: Yes, but unless we keep a grip on all aspects that lead to high budgets, the result can often be regarded as the bleeding stump policy: Oh, Minister, we have to have a 5 per cent. increase otherwise we shall have to sack 53 people. Keeping the expenditure of such bodies under control is difficult and, of course, we must have control over the headline cash figure for them. However, to make sure that those cash figures are delivered, there is a case for ensuring that the body count is kept under control, too.

David Laws: Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that, if this body is to be the independent assessor of standards that we want it to be, it might wish at some stage to take on more responsibility for the oversight of qualifications than was given to it originally by the Government? That might imply an increase in the number of staff, even within the budget envelope. If such powers continue to be exercisable, would there not be a risk that a Secretary of State might interfere in the number of staff if he or she did not wish the powers of oversight to be exercised in that way?

Nick Gibb: We have to trust Ministers in a democracy to carry out their role with integrity.

David Laws: Blimey, the hon. Gentleman is confident.

Nick Gibb: Well, if Ministers were appointed from the Conservative Benches, I am sure that they would have integrity. Ministers are accountable to Parliament and to the public.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Gibb: Perhaps the hon. Lady is about to shatter my illusion about Ministers.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I merely wanted the hon. Gentleman to clarify that he was not suggesting that it was only Conservative Ministers who have integrity.

Nick Gibb: Of course not. My jocular response to the intervention was not intended to imply such matters. I was merely saying that Ministers appointed from the Conservative Benches certainly would have integrity.
We believe in creating a regulatory body that is genuinely independent. However, from observing the words of Ofqual since its establishment in 2008 and the activities of and views expressed by the quasi-independent regulatory arm of the QCA since its establishment in 1997, it is clear that more of the same approach will not serve to deliver higher or consistent standards. We need a fresh approach that divorces the regulator from those with vested producer interests so that we can all be sure that a genuine, independent regulator will not allow standards to continue a downward drift. The amendments would go some way to helping change Ofqual into such a body and I hope that the Minister will accept them.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: One thing on which we can all agree is the importance of an independent regulator so, hopefully, we can start from that premise. The difference of opinion is over how that independence is demonstrated. I am a little concerned by some of the arguments from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, which seem to suggest that, if the regulator does not say that standards have fallen, she cannot possibly be independent.

Nick Gibb: It was not just that comment, but the fact that the regulator has not seen it as her role yet to pursue any of the evidence that has been around for many years and nor did the previous QCA regulatory body. That is what worries me. I was also worried by the fact that she said if this is a concern, when clearly the newspapers report massive public concern about such matters daily.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: If we promoted Government policy on the basis of what we see in the newspaper each day, we would not be in a very good position.
It is important to point out that there is no conclusive evidence. I accept that there have been reviews, such as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but most subject reviews have found that standards have been maintained. I wish to refer back to the report quoted by Peter Tymms. It said:
From this perspective, it is either not really possible to say whether standards have been maintained, or, so far as one can say, the evidence suggests that they have been.
That was probably the point that Kathleen Tattersall was trying to make. I am not trying to speak on her behalf and I would not dream of doing so. However, the inference that I took from the report was that much of the evidence is conflicting and mostly inconclusive. One of Ofquals new roles will be to take on the rolling programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It has a clear remit to ensure that standards are maintained.

David Laws: The Minister spoke about maintenance of standards. Will she clarify what she means by that? She will be aware that Mike Creswell has already gone on the record saying that when the modular GCSE is introduced, he expects there to be a consequential improvement in GCSE results. In order to keep standards constant, does the Minister expect there to be a change in the borderlining of grades so that the percentage of students in each cohort getting A, B and C grades remains roughly the same?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: That is a matter for Ofqual. I accept Mike Creswells point, but we have to wait until we get the evidence rather than acting on what people think might happen. It would be unwise for us to go forward saying, Because he believes that that could be a result of a new modular GCSE.

David Laws: Kathleen Tattersalls evidence made it clear that she had an expectation that if a change in an exam improved results, there should be change in the grade boundaries to ensure that the same proportion of students were getting grades A, B and C as before. That is a really important issue in the standards debate. Does the Minister, therefore, agree with Ofqual on that point?

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: To repeat to the answer that I gave to the previous question asked by the hon. Member for Yeovil, if his hypothetical example comes to pass it will be for Ofqual to decide and regulate. We have given Ofqual the powers to do that under the Bill, and it would be within its remit to do so.

David Laws: But the Minister must have a view about whether Ofquals duty to maintain standards means that, if a qualification changes and there is an improvement in the results as a consequence of that change, there should be an adjustment so that the standards remain the same. She must have a view on whether there should not be an adjustment and the results should be allowed to improve or whether standards should be kept level by adjusting the grade boundaries. Ofqual will not be able to do its job unless it knows what Minister means by maintaining standards.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: It is quite clear what that means. We are looking at consistency over time. Ofquals remit is to have consistency over time.

David Laws: Of what?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Of maintaining the standard that has been reached. That is the purpose of Ofqual as the regulator. I am not convinced that we are getting anywhere with this exchange, so I shall move on.
I want to pick up on the point about Ofqual only saying that standards have been maintained. With interim Ofqual, most of the subject reviews have found that standards have been maintained. In one or two cases where there have been problems, interim Ofqual has not shirked from coming out and saying so and I have no reason to believe that Ofqual, as constituted, will shirk from doing that. It would be in nobodys interests, least of all the Governments, for Ofqual not to be independent and to demonstrate that it is independent; if it were not independent it would lose all credibility. Ofqual will have to report to Parliament and account for the reports that it makes.
I will now move on to a group of amendmentsall of which, unsurprisingly, we will resistthat relate to provisions in schedule 9 about the organisation and structure of Ofqual and the appointment and conditions of service of its members and staff. Amendments 50 to 53 relate to the mechanisms for appointing members of Ofqual. The Secretary of States interest in appointing Ofqual members and the deputy chair reflects the importance of those roles.
The Secretary of State will want to ensure that the best possible appointments are made to lead an organisation that will play a key part in the education sector. However, the public appointment process will be regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments to ensure independence and transparency. We are talking about getting the best people for the job and, once they have been appointed, their reporting line being clearly to Parliament, not to Ministers. Amendment 50 is not feasible, because I do not think that the Crown can appoint lots of members to bodies such as thisapart from anything else, there is a problem of volume. The Secretary of State is the most appropriate person to do the appointing; it is neither realistic nor desirable for the Crown to do it.
On amendment 51, Ofquals deputy chair will play a vital rolenot least because if the chief regulator is absent for a period, the deputy will assume those duties. Again, the Secretary of States interest in appointing the deputy reflects the importance of the post. The amendment, which proposes that the ordinary members of Ofqual should elect their deputy, would not be appropriate.
On amendments 52 and 53, given that it is right for the Secretary of State to appoint Ofquals ordinary members and deputy chair, it should also be for the Secretary of State to have the powers in the schedule that relate to dismissal. There cannot be one person appointing and another dismissing. We reject the proposals in amendments 52 and 53 that ordinary members should be able to remove the deputy chair and ordinary members.
Amendment 530 is intended to clarify that the Secretary of States power to remove a person under the clause refers to his power to remove them from the office of deputy. The amendment is not necessary as that is already the effect of the clause. The Secretary of States power to remove an ordinary member from office is found in subsection (5) of the clause and subsection (4) relates only to the office of deputy.
Amendment 529 would make the appointment of the chief regulator subject to the approval of Parliament by requiring the appointment to be made by means of a statutory instrument that either House could annul. The chief regulator will be appointed by Her Majesty by Order in Council, which reflects the independence and importance of the role.
The chief regulator will be the chair and public face of Ofqual. It is essential that the operation of the qualifications system is effective and that the chief regulator is credible and respected. A fair and transparent appointment process is an important start if that is to be achieved. Two things will help with that. First, the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments recently extended its remit to cover non-ministerial departments, which we intend will include Ofqual. The OCPA monitors and reports on public appointments, which enables people to have confidence in the appointments process.
Secondly, last year, the Government introduced pre-appointment hearings by Select Committees for key public appointments. That enables Select Committees to take evidence from candidates for certain public appointments before they are appointed. The Government have announced that, subject to the passage of the Bill, the chief regulator is one of the key public appointments that will be subject to pre-appointment hearings and therefore to scrutiny by the relevant Select Committee. This will help the Select Committee to gain confidence in what will be a key appointment for them.

Charles Walker: Will a panel of candidates be shown to the Select Committee or will it purely be the candidate that the Secretary of State wishes to appoint who will appear before the Select Committee?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I cannot answer that question off the top of my head, but I will endeavour to find out for the hon. Gentleman.
Any new candidate for the role will in future face scrutiny under these pre-appointment hearing arrangements. Those two factorsthe OCPA regulation and the pre-appointment hearingsshould give everyone confidence in the independence and transparency of the appointment of the chief regulator. For that reason, the Government reject that amendment.

Nick Gibb: I have may have missed the point, but will Kathleen Tattersall go before the Select Committee for her appointment to be confirmed, given that she is now chair of interim Ofqual and not of Ofqual as set out in the legislation?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: No, Kathleen Tattersall is in post. The chief regulator to succeed her that will go through that process.
Amendment 385 would add failure to ensure the standards of regulated qualifications is maintained to the grounds for removal. That amendment is not necessary because paragraph 3(7) already states that the
chief regulator can be removed because of inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of office.
If Ofqual fails to maintain the standards of regulated qualifications because of any inability or unfitness on behalf of the chief regulator, the chief regulator can be removed.

Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady makes an important point. I am interested in what she has to say, bearing in mind Pepper v. Hart. My interpretation of paragraph 3(7)(a) is that not performing the job well would not be sufficient reason for the removal of the chief regulator. To me, it suggests some other form of unfitness to do the job. Will she confirm that if standards are perceived to decline or do decline, that will be grounds for removal under that paragraph?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: One of the main objectives of Ofqual is the maintenance of standards. If it is felt that the chief regulator has not fulfilled the objectives of Ofqual, that would be a consideration in deciding whether they should be removed from office.

David Laws: I know that Ministers come programmed to reject all Opposition amendmentsperhaps understandablybut does the hon. Lady agree that the intention behind the words that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is trying to amend is ambiguous? An
inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of office
almost suggests a medical reason for the potential dismissal, rather than the quality of the job that is being done. Will she reflect on whether the hon. Gentleman is actually being extremely helpful in trying to make this paragraph clearer and firmer?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I take the hon. Gentlemans point, but I did not read the paragraph as saying that the removal could be only for medical unfitness.

David Laws: I was not necessarily suggesting that medical unfitness would be the only grounds, but the words inability and unfitness suggest a basic problem with an individual doing a job, rather than the quality of the job that is being done. That is the ambiguity in the paragraph.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I disagree about the degree of ambiguity because the duties of office are the duty objectives that have been set out. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton raised the example of the maintenance of standards. Meeting the standards objective is one of the main duties of Ofqual and of the chief regulator. I do not agree with the point the hon. Member for Yeovil is making.
Amendment 416 proposes that:
The terms of the conditions of service of the Chief Executive, including all refunds of expenses incurred by the Chief Executive in carrying out his duties shall be published annually.
Paragraph 6(5) of schedule 9 states that the terms and conditions of the chief executive and the
amount of remuneration, allowances and expenses
will be determined by Ofqual with the approval of the Secretary of State. That will ensure that the payments are set at a fair level that represents good value for money. We do not consider it appropriate to place a requirement in legislation to publish an individuals terms and conditions of service or expenses repayments.
Similarly, amendment 417 proposes that payments made to the chief regulator and ordinary members
shall be published annually together with the contracts of employment and pension arrangements of the chief regulator and the ordinary members.

Charles Walker: I really should have read the Bill more closely than I did. Am I right in thinking that the chief executive will have a rolling contract or will it be a fixed-term contract of three years or whatever, subject to renewal at the end of that period?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: My understanding is that it is a fixed-term contract, but I stand to be corrected.
Amendment 417 proposes that payments to the chief regulator and ordinary members be published annually. Again, the amount of those payments is approved by the Secretary of State. We do not consider it appropriate to place a requirement in legislation to publish those payments. The terms of contract will be up to Ofqual and subject to the Secretary of States approval.

Nick Gibb: The Minister says that there is no need to put the publication of remuneration in the legislation. Does that mean that she intends that terms and conditions, annual salaries, expenses and pension contributions will be published in the annual report?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am not sure whether it will go in the annual report, but Ofqual will be subject to audit by the National Audit Office. It will have to produce accounts, and my memory of most organisations accounts suggests that that has to be stated in broad terms.

David Laws: Is it not standard procedure that even if something is within particular bands, the amounts of the salaries and pension entitlements of senior individuals in organisations such as this would be included in the annual report?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am not saying that it will not be included. My point is that I envisage other mechanisms being used to ensure the accountability mentioned in the amendment, rather than it being in the Bill.

Nick Gibb: I am still not clear about whether that information will be included in the annual accounts. One of our prime roles in this place is to maintain and look after tax revenues and ensure that they are spent properly. Neither I nor the hon. Member for Yeovil have been able to get the answer to a simple question: will the annual salary and pension contributions of the chief regulator and the chief executive be included in the annual report of Ofqual?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I cannot answer that question at the moment, but I will get back to the hon. Gentlemen on the matter. I intend Ofqual to be as transparent, visible and accountable as we want it to be. Certainly in respect of the annual accounts, National Audit Office guidelines will be used as to what is published and audited.

Bill Wiggin: My understanding is that if a Minister says in Committee that something should be so, any judge who later looks at the musings of the Committee will try to take the Ministers decision as part of the judgment. Therefore, if she says that those figures will be published, it is highly likely that that will happen. Why will she not say that?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I said that we intend Ofqual to be as visible, transparent and accountable as all of us wish it to be. I do not intend to go into detail at this stage. We will look further into what is in the annual report and refer back to the matter as we progress further with the legislation.
Amendment 420 is about the removal of ordinary members. It is similar to amendment 385 and seeks to state in the Bill that ordinary members can be removed from office by the Secretary of State on the grounds of
failure to ensure the standard of regulated qualifications is maintained.
Under paragraph 4(5) of schedule 9, the Secretary of State may remove an ordinary member from office on the grounds of
inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of office.
The same argument as the one I made earlier applies.
Amendments 40, 197 and 198 propose restrictions on the appointment of Ofqual members. It goes without saying that we need Ofqual to have top-notch people with a mix of the necessary skills and experience and the fibre to act independently and take the flack that will no doubt come their way. We must ensure that Ofqual membership attracts the best possible candidates. Ofqual members will need a wide range of experience and expertise to ensure and account to Parliament that Ofqual is a well-run organisation that meets its objectives and responds well to all those, including employers, higher education institutions, schools and colleges, that rely on it to do its job thoroughly and effectively.
I can tell the hon. Member for Leominster that salary and pensions contributions will be included in the annual accounts. I do not know whether that goes forward to the annual report, but annual accounts are a matter of public record.
Appointments will be made by the Secretary of State to ensure that the best possible candidates are chosen. As I said earlier, the public appointment process will be regulated by the OCPA to ensure independence and transparency. If we are to have the best possible candidates, I do not want the Bill to narrow down the field. Amendment 197 proposes that one of the members of Ofqual should be a member of another regulatory body. I do not think that we should go down that route. Does Ofqual need to work closely with fellow regulators in the UK and overseaswith Ofsted and other regulators? Absolutely, of course it does. Does that mean that we need to write something into the membership provisions? No, I do not think that it does.

Nick Gibb: Do other regulatory bodies in this country have a requirement for their board to contain a member of another regulatory board?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Not to my knowledge, but I will find out. Amendment 198 proposes that the chair and chief executive must be full-time positions. Again, we do not need legislation on that. Will the posts be demanding, high-profile, key leadership roles in the education sector? Yes, of course they will. Will the posts be full-time? The chief executive position is pretty much bound to be and the post of chief regulator may well be too, but, again, I am not sure that we need it in legislation.

Charles Walker: The Minister says that the post of chief executive is pretty much bound to be, which is not quite a cast iron assurance. Will it be a full-time position?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I certainly envisage it being a full-time position, but I do not think that it is necessary to put that in the Bill.
Amendment 40 proposes that ordinary Ofqual members
must not have financial or other occupational interests that might be regarded as constituting a conflict of interest with that of promoting the objectives of Ofqual.
I am not entirely clear what the amendment is intended to achieve. It would clearly be inappropriate to appoint anyone directly connected to an awarding body that Ofqual would be regulating, but I do not think the amendment is about that. I cannot see who else would have a conflict of interest serious enough to bar them from membership. Ofqual will have procedures to manage conflicts of interest over specific issues. I do not accept that there is any professional who would have an interest that would conflict with maintaining standards or confidence in exams and assessments. What matters most to head teachers, like the rest of us, is that confidence in the system is high because of robust regulation, so their students get the results and credit they deserve for their achievements.

Nick Gibb: Can the hon. Lady not understand that if someone who runs a school and is judged on the exam results of pupils were also a member of Ofqual, it would theoretically be in their interest to allow standards to decline, so the schools results would rise by more than the standard of education provided there would normally demonstrate? It is a clear and obvious conflict of interest.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: It sounds a little convoluted to me. The Bill provisions are consistent with provisions for the membership of the Higher Education Funding Council for England and Ofsted. Indeed, there are several vice-chancellors on the board of the HEFCE, which has a role in funding teaching and research in universities and colleges. The HEFCE has successfully managed any conflict of interest, but the important thing is the essential expertise that those individuals bring. We need Ofqual members who bring a range of experience and expertise.

Nick Gibb: Does the hon. Lady think that it would be right for a serving bank board member to be on the board of the Financial Services Authority?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We are talking about a different issue.

Nick Gibb: We are talking about regulation.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I accept that it is regulation but, in this instance, I think it important that Ofqual has the flexibility to have a range of expertise. I do not want to impose restrictions and say that it cannot bring people in because they were head teachers.

Nick Gibb: But does the FSA not need expertise as well? It has to go out and employ somebody from the City of London, who has to abandon all their interests in a bank or financial institution. Should the hon. Lady not ensure that any board member of Ofqual is not a serving professor of education in a teacher training college or a serving head teacher?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I think that this case is different. The two cases cannot be compared. Ofquals conflict of interest rules will cover it. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman and his FSA and banking analogy.
Amendments 54 and 55 propose that Ofqual rather than the Secretary of State should appoint Ofquals first chief executive and determine his or her conditions of service. On the other hand, amendments 418 and 419 propose that the Secretary of State should appoint all future Ofqual chief executives, not just the first. There is provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to appoint the first chief executive because we have a chicken and egg situation. Ofqual will need a chief executive on day one to lead on the set-up of the organisation and ensure that it hits the ground running. Indeed, we will do our best to ensure that the chief executive is in the post before day one as part of a shadow arrangement, again so that Ofqual can get off to the best possible start. However, Ofqual itself will not exist at that stage; there will be no formally appointed Ofqual members, so they cannot appoint of the first chief executive. What we will need is for the Secretary of State to appoint on the first occasion, looking to Kathleen Tattersall, as the chair of interim Ofqual, to play a leading role in the appointment. Future chief executives should of course be appointed by Ofqual rather than the Secretary of State, and their conditions of service will be decided by Ofqual.

David Laws: Did the Government consider any other options for the appointment of that individual the first time round? Did they consider any role that Parliament, through the Select Committee, might play?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: As I said, the important thing is that we need to get the chief executive in as soon as possible, which is why we have taken the route we havethat the Secretary of State appoints the first chief executive.
Amendment 415 proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power to remove the chief executive, but that is neither necessary nor appropriate. Ofqual should have the power to both appoint and remove the chief executive. The conditions of service are set by the Secretary of State for the first chief executive, while Ofqual will be able to do that for future chief executives.
There are two amendments that propose a role for the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families in the appointment of staff. They refer specifically to that Committee, even though Ofquals role is also of interest to the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills. The Children, Schools and Families Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the administration, expenditure and policy of the Department for Children, Schools and Families, including the work of non-departmental public bodies and Ofsted. Amendment 57 proposes that the appointment and conditions of service of Ofqual chief executives after the first appointment should be subject to the approval of the Select Committee rather than the Secretary of State. Amendment 58 proposes that the number of Ofqual staff, their conditions of service and the amount of remuneration allowances and expenses of staff should be subject to the approval of the Select Committee.
It is not in dispute that Ofqual needs to report to Parliament and that the Select Committees will have a key role in holding Ofqual to account. In relation to the new appointments to the post of chief regulator, as we have already said, the Select Committee will hold pre-appointment hearings, but constitutionally, I do not think that we can have Select Committeespart of the legislaturemaking appointments to the staff and boards of parts of the Executive.

David Laws: I understand the Ministers concerns on the last point, although I do not agree with them. In relation to clause 58, which she probably has just dealt with, will she comment on the views and concerns expressed by Ofqual itself to the Committee? Kathleen Tattersall said in her note to the Committee that
In my view requirement for Ministerial approval of such matters as numbers of staff and terms and conditions ... is ... questionable.
Have the Government rejected those concerns?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Of course we have listened to Kathleen Tattersalls concerns, but it is standard practice for non-ministerial Government departments to have the conditions of service of its staff and their numbers and approved by a Minister. Having reflected, we agreed that that should be the case here.

David Laws: Given that the Department is already exercising budget control and oversight, what is the reason for not allowing Ofqual to determine its own numbers of staff within that budget constraint?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: It is because of the duty that we, as Ministers, have, to ensure that we meet our budgetary constraints, and our responsibility for overall numbers in the civil service.

David Laws: The Minister said that part of the concern is in discharging the budget constraint responsibilities, but that is already in place. I am not suggesting that Ofqual should be allowed to set its own budget, merely that once the budget is fixed, it should be for Ofqual to determine the number of staff in the budget.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: But we come back to the point about the overall civil service numbers. I was interested in the remarks that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made and the interesting exchange between him and the hon. Member for Yeovil on that point.

David Laws: The Minister has been extremely patient with us, but will she explain why, if the Government have overall budget control, it is important for them to determine the number of staff employed with the budget? Is it not a potential mechanism through which the present or a future Government could seek to interfere in how Ofqual chooses to discharge its oversight responsibilities on standards?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: No, I disagree. It is an important ministerial tool, and it is standard practice in relation to all non-ministerial Government departments. We are not singling Ofqual out for that treatment, and I do not see any reason to treat Ofqual any differently from any non-ministerial Government department.
Amendment 56 refers to line 24 and a sub-paragraph (5) of schedule 9. I am confused, because line 24 corresponds with paragraph 7(5) of schedule 9. Since the hon. Gentleman and colleagues have tabled a separate amendment, amendment 59, to remove paragraph 7(6), I hope that I am correct in assuming that the intention of amendment 56 is to remove paragraph 7(5). I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong.
Paragraph 7(5) allows Ofqual to arrange for the payment of remuneration, allowances and expenses to any person who is a member of an Ofqual committee but is not a member of Ofqual or Ofqual staff. That is a standard activity for organisations such as Ofqual, and Ofqual requires the power to remunerate or pay allowances or expenses to persons who may serve on its committees but are not members of its staff. Under paragraph 7(4), Ofquals committees must include one member of Ofqual or Ofqual staff, and they may also include external persons. They may be necessary to provide expertise to the committee and so improve its effectiveness. It is reasonable that Ofqual should have the power to remunerate these persons and pay allowances and expenses when it considers that appropriate.
Amendment 59 would remove the requirement for Ofqual to review at least once in any five-year period the structure of its committees and the scope of each committees activities. The requirement will ensure that Ofqual follows good practice in reviewing its committees, and paragraph 7(6) does not compel Ofqual to change the structure, scope or activities of its committees; it simply sets a maximum length of time that can pass without reviewing those aspects. Ofqual remains entirely independent regarding how it establishes its committees and their scope.
In reality, we believe that Ofqual, like any similar organisation, would wish to review the structure and scope of its committees more frequently than is envisaged in paragraph 7(6) and (7). Reviewing its committees is clearly good practice for an organisation of Ofquals nature, but we have introduced the measure to ensure that Ofqual fulfils the minimum expectation. We do not consider it burdensome or think that it affects Ofquals independence, and, with that, I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment.

Nick Gibb: I was disappointed by the Ministers response and, in particular, by her clear lack of understanding in what she said. I was also disappointed by the Governments lack of understanding about independence, given how the Bill is drafted. Ofqual should be independent not just of exam boards but of anybody who has a vested interest: for example, those preparing children to take the tests, or the education faculties of the universities, which have a vested interest in demonstrating that exam standards have not fallen in circumstances in which they have, if the education system adopts practices advocated by those faculties. If we are to trust the exam system and it is to provide an objective assessment of the effectiveness of the policies that those faculties advocate, we must ensure that they are not represented on the board of Ofqual.
I was also disappointed by the Ministers response to the issue raised in amendment 385 about dismissing the chief regulator in circumstances in which standards in the exam system have not been maintained. I do not accept her argument that paragraph 3(7)(a), which deals with
inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of office,
covers it and can be used to dismiss a chief regulator in circumstances where exam standards have clearly fallen. Under most ordinary interpretations of that phrase, people would, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said, regard it as being akin to a decision on the grounds of medical or other reasons of unfitness to carry out a particular job, not one based on how well that job has been carried out. There is no other method of dismissal. Paragraph 3 (7)(b) deals with
absence from Ofquals meetings for a continuous period of more than 6 months.
I therefore seek permission to press for the Committees opinion on amendment 385, which will add to schedule 9 further grounds for dismissal of the chief regulator in circumstances where the standards of regulated qualifications have not been maintained.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for responding in detail to the amendments to schedule 9 and for her willingness to allow us to cross-question her on some of those matters. She has shown herself to be as patient as the Minister for Schools and Learners on these occasions, which is very much appreciated.
Like the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, however, I was disappointed, although not entirely surprised, by the fact that all the amendments were rejected by the Minister. In particular, we are still concerned about schedule 9 and the extent to which the Secretary of State is exercising powers to appoint and sack key members of the regulator. We are concerned about the lack of imagination in the accountability of the body to Ministers, rather than to Parliament. We are also concerned about the extraordinary powers to micro-manage in the Bill, even down to the extent and regularity with which Ofqual must examine the structure of its own committees and the number of staff that it is allowed to employ.
We are sympathetic to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, which proposes a more explicit duty to maintain standards. Returning to the points that were made about schedule 9(3)(7) on page 191 and the chief regulators removal from office. The grounds for such removal are
absence from Ofquals meetings for a continuous period of more than 6 months without Ofquals permission.
There is an ambiguous phrase about inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of office. Most people would take those words to relate either to some core issue of competence or, more likely, to some sort of judgment about the individuals medical or other circumstances. There is not, as might be expected when legislating for a new body, a clear insistence that success in upholding standards, which is supposed to be the purpose of Ofqual, should be a key measure in deciding whether or not the chief regulator should be removed from office. I am happy to support the hon. Gentleman in his amendment if he decides to press it to a Division.
I appreciate that there are small, fundamental differences on the extent to which accountability should be to the Secretary of State, rather than to some other body, and the way in which individuals are selected for, and dismissed from, these posts. It is clear that there are differences on that point, not only with the Minister, but with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. I should like to reflect on what the Minister has said on those points and consider whether we will raise our concerns on those issues at a later stage in our proceedings.
I should like highlight our concerns and disappointment, as expressed in two of our the amendments which reflect the fact that there is an excessive desire by the Government to micro-manage the new body. Amendment 58, which takes the power to approve the number of staff members and their terms and conditions of service and so forth away from the Secretary of State. We could argue about whether the Children, Schools and Families Committee is the correct Committee to have oversight. The Minister indicated that some of the responsibilities might be joint departmental ones. However, I draw the Ministers attention to the fact that even Kathleen Tattersall is concerned that the extent of the powers is excessive. I repeat that, in her note to the Committee, she said:
In my view the requirement for Ministerial approval of such matters as numbers of staff and terms and conditions... is more questionable.
We have had a number of exchanges on the issue, and I am grateful to the Minister for her willingness to respond to so many interventions, but I am not entirely convinced by the Governments argument.
The Minister began by saying that the budget was somehow a relevant factor in causing the Government to want the powers, but nobody was suggesting that budget control should be undermined in any way. The issue, having set the budget, is whether it is reasonable for Ministers to interfere in issues such as how many staff are employed. I am concerned, because I hopewe will look at this in detail in clause 125that, in the future, Ofqual will be more independent from the Government than it is at present.
Ofqual may also decide to take on new responsibilities to discharge its functions in relation to standards. I will not anticipate our arguments on clause 125 but, in her evidence to the Committee, the Minister herself said that such new responsibilities would be possible. If future Governments have the power to cap staff numbers, they may well seek greater oversight and use those powers to constrain the extent to which Ofqual develops its functions. Future Governments could, for example, employ more staff to carry out sample testing of particular cohorts to make an assessment of changes in standards over time and the relationship to changes in exam standards. Although that may seem to be a narrow point, it is quite important, so we may return to it later and frame the amendment more carefully.
Finally, I am concerned about micro-management, which is why we tabled amendment 59, which would remove the duty on Ofqual to review its committees every five years. The fact Ministers believe it necessary to prescribe in legislation the regularity with which Ofqual has to review its committees suggests a very low level of confidence in the individuals and chief executive who will oversee such reviews. If the Government are going to be that detailed in micro-managing Ofqual, heaven knows what other duties and regulations they might want to impose through the Bill, even though such measures might seem like common sense to some individuals. As a small indication of our desire to make Ofqual more independent, it is my intention to press amendment 59 to a Division.

Joan Humble: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm his intention in relation to amendment 50, which is the lead amendment?

David Laws: I apologise, Mrs. Humble. I would like to return to the issue covered by amendment 50 later, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 385, in schedule 9, page 191, line 7, at end insert
(c) failure to ensure the standard of regulated qualifications is maintained..(Mr. Gibb.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Joan Humble: We now come to Government amendment 497

David Laws: On a point of order, Mrs. Humble. I apologise for interrupting you, but I wanted to clarify whether it would be possible also to move a Division on amendment 59, as I indicated.

Joan Humble: I will ask the hon. Gentleman to move that amendment formally when we reach the appropriate point, after the next two groups of amendments.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I beg to move amendment 497, in schedule 9, page 192, line 11, after first of insert other.

This is a technical drafting amendment which clarifies that paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 9 relates to the conditions of service of members of staff other than the chief executive (whose conditions of service are already dealt with by paragraph 6(1) to (3)).

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 498 and 499, 437 to 439, 441, 451, 464, 467, 446, 452, 482, 486 to 489, 500, 495 and 509.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: You read out the amendments very eloquently, Mrs. Humble. I appreciate that there is a lot to take in, but most of the amendments are technical. They derive from our review of the Bill to ensure that it delivers precisely and unambiguously what we wanted and that its measures are fully consistent.
Government amendments 437 and 438 ensure that Ofqual must recognise an awarding body or accredit its qualification when the relevant criteria are met, but must not otherwise do so. As drafted at the moment, the wording could imply that Ofqual has the power to recognise or accredit when the relevant criteria are not met, which was never our intention. Government amendments 439 and 441 make it clear that it is for Ofqual to decide when its criteria for recognition and accreditation and its general conditions come into force. That will allow Ofqual to manage the introduction of new qualifications effectively and give awarding bodies the time that they need to prepare for changes in the requirements.
Government amendment 451 ensures that if Ofqual revises its accreditation criteria, awarding bodies will have to comply with the new criteria. In those circumstances, an accreditation will cease on a date specified by Ofqual unless Ofqual says otherwise. That will mean that the awarding body will have to go back to Ofqual to seek a new accreditation, which will allow Ofqual to manage revisions to criteria in an orderly way. In practice, that is how the arrangements work at the moment. Additionally, Ofqual can make saving or transitional provisions to prevent any harm to those studying for a qualification that ceases to be accredited.
Government amendments 478 to 480 are technical amendments to ensure that Ofqual must publish on its register details of each individual form of a qualification that an awarding body awards, not just the types of qualification that it awards. Government amendments 464 and 467 ensure that Ofquals criteria in relation to guided learning hours need not come into force immediately, mirroring the position for its other criteria.

Nick Gibb: Will the Minister explain why it is necessary for guided learning hours to be included in the Bill, and are therefore necessary to amend the provisions relating to them? What is the purpose of having guided hours in the legislation?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Off the top of my head, it is because guided learning hours are part of achieving the qualification. However, if there is an additional answer, I will get back to the hon. Gentleman.
Government amendments 497 and 498 eliminate unnecessary duplication in the provisions relating to the conditions of service of Ofquals chief executive and other members of staff, thereby eliminating any possible ambiguity about how the conditions are set. Government amendment 499 is one of a number of drafting changes to ensure that the Bill is consistent in how it refers to itself in conjunction with other Acts.
Government amendment 446 refers to clauses 132 and 134, which say that in certain specific and limited circumstances, Ofqual can set a condition on an awarding body allowing Ofqual to enter premises to inspect or copy documents. Clause 134(3) confirms that inspecting documents includes inspecting records kept on computers. The amendment substitutes improved wording so that the meaning of the provision is crystal clear.

Nick Gibb: On amendment 446, why does the Minister feel it necessary for Ofqual to have the entry and inspection powers to enter awarding bodies premises and look at their computer records?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Because if Ofqual has a condition allowing it to enter premises to inspect or copy documents, it must surely include documents and records kept on a computer.

Charles Walker: What level of notice will Ofqual be required to provide to the agency whose premises it is inspecting or entering?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: That relates to clause 134. We will get to that when we get there.
Government amendment 452 deals purely with a drafting point and will allow us to bring one bit of the Bill into line with another. Amendment 482 is a technical amendment intended to ensure that the relevant provisions for the withdrawal of recognition apply fully to the situation in which the body is recognised to award or authenticate credits in respect of components of qualifications, rather than full qualifications. Similarly, Government amendments 486 to 489 are all technical. Government amendments 486 and 489 clarify that where the Bill makes provision about joint working with other public bodies for the performance by Ofqual of its qualifications functions, the intention is to catch the performance of any of those functions, and not necessarily the performance of all of them. Government amendments 487 and 488 tighten up the drafting so as to be clear that Ofqual is not, strictly speaking, a qualifications regulator, as defined in clause 149(2)(a).

Nick Gibb: The fact that the Minister does not regard Ofqual as a qualifications regulator was clear from the last debate. If it is not a qualifications regulator, what is it?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We have to return to Ofquals objectives under clause 125, which sets out exactly what it is. The amendments are technical. It is not as per the precise definition in clause 125, but when we get to that clause, we can discuss Ofquals objectives. Then we can deal with the hon. Gentlemans point.

David Laws: I am rather baffled by this exchange about the purpose of Ofqual. It is a rather basic point. Is this a qualifications regulator, a standards regulator or something else?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: This is a technical point about a precise definition. Obviously, Ofqual is a regulator of our qualifications system. As I understand it, the amendment will tighten up a technical matter, and certainly does not mean that we do not think that Ofqual is a regulator of our qualifications systemthe clue is in the title really.
Amendment 495 will make the Bill easier to read and reproduces the definition of public authority in full, rather than making the reader cross-refer to the definition 10 pages away in clause 148. Amendment 500 addresses a minor issue over the drafting of schedule 11 dealing with the QCDA and mirrors amendment 498 for Ofqual. Amendment 509, like amendment 482, is a technical amendment intended to ensure that the relevant provisions over the withdrawal of recognition apply fully to the situation where the body is recognised to award, or authenticate, credits in respect of components of qualifications.
Most of the amendments are purely technical and, where there are material changes, those changes are not great. I hope that, on the basis of that explanation, hon. Members will agree that the 23 amendments be made to the Bill.

Nick Gibb: I had not intended to rise, other than to ask the questions I have already asked during my interventions. However, I am afraid to say that the answers given by the Minister, and the explanations given for the amendments, were wholly lacking on three of the amendments. I am concerned about the tabling of 23 Government amendments together in one huge debate. In particular, I was concerned about the flippant response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne about the notice period given for inspections for entry into companies premises. Those powers are important and to not know the notice period, and then to flippantly say a reasonable notice, is not acceptable. To quote from the explanatory note:
This amendment clarifies that Ofqual may set an entry and inspection condition that allows a person authorised by Ofqual to inspect and copy electronic records in the same way as a person would be able to do if authorised under section 58 of the Education Act 2005.
I asked the Minister what the purpose of that power was; why was it needed? I do not just mean, why were new powers needed to examine electronic records? The purpose of the question was to ask, why are those powers to go into peoples premises to inspect their records necessary for Ofqual, when we are talking about it regulating qualifications?
We then come to Government amendment 464, which talks about guiding learning hours. The Minister was not able to explain why it was necessary to have them in the Bill. I know that we will come to that in clause 139, but this is an amendment to clause 139 and I expected the Minister to have a clear understanding of why we should have guided learning hours in legislation. Is she telling professionals how many hours are needed to teach a particular qualification? Is it the intention of the Government to say that, for example, 50 hours is needed for a particular module of a particular GCSE? That is something that should be left to the professionalism of teachers.
On Government amendment 487, we are told in the explanatory statement that it clarifies that
Ofqual itself is not a qualifications regulator.
That has baffled members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Yeovil, because I thought that the precise purpose of this part of the Bill was to establish a qualifications regulator. Again, I was not very happy with the Ministers response. Will she have another attempt at answering those questions? If not, then I do not feel comfortable in allowing those three Government amendments to go through untested.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: As regards to the guided learning hours, that relates to raising the participation age, as agreed in the Education and Skills Act 2008. That creates a duty on young people above compulsory school age, but under-18, to participate in education or training. When people who are under-18 are in full-time employment, the duty in the Act requires them to undertake sufficient relevant education or training, which is defined as the equivalent of 280 hours a year. To facilitate that, the Act placed a duty on the QCA, as regulator, to assign guided learning hours to qualifications. That is the reason why those powers are being passed on to Ofqual.

Nick Gibb: Will the Minister confirm that it does not apply to qualifications applicable to those under the age of 16?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Regarding the powers to enter premises, they are needed to allow Ofqual to investigate whether awarding bodies are maintaining standards and whether fees should be capped. That is the reason why the power to inspect documents is there. We will set out a code of practice on how the powers should be used, which will define what is a reasonable period of notice.
The technical point is that clause 149 sets out the power to provide information to other qualifications regulators. Of course Ofqual is a qualifications regulator, but the definition in the clause is for regulators elsewhere in the UK. Subsection (2)(b) defines the term purely for the purpose of the clause. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Gibb: I am still not entirely satisfied by the Ministers response on amendment 487, although I am happy with her responses on the other two amendments. The explanatory statement for amendment 487 states:
This amendment and amendment 488 are technically drafting amendments, clarifying that Ofqual itself is not a qualifications regulator within the meaning given to that term by clause 149(2)(a).
It does not state that the other regulators are not qualifications regulators.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: That merely means that Ofqual will not have to provide information to itself. That is the purpose of that technical amendment.

Nick Gibb: It would have been helpful if the explanatory statement stated that, which it does not. It states that
Ofqual itself is not a qualifications regulator.
Given that the Minister has confirmed that Ofqual is a qualifications regulator, I will not press the matter to a division.

Amendment 497 agreed to.

Amendment made: 498, in schedule 9, page 192, line 13, leave out paragraph (c).(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

Amendment proposed: 59, in schedule 9, page 192, leave out lines 28 to 33.(Mr. Laws.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: 499, in schedule 9, page 194, line 12, leave out this or any other and insert any.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

Schedule 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Joan Humble: At this stage I shall suspend our proceedings for an hour. Members should return at 7.58 pm.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming

Clause 125

Objectives

David Laws: I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 125, page 71, line 18, at end insert
(f) the educational standards and performance objective..

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendments 334, in clause 125, page 71, line 18, at end insert
(f) the timeliness objective..
Amendment 36, in clause 125, page 71, line 23, at end insert
(c) maintain standards..
Amendment 41, in clause 125, page 71, line 23, at end insert
(c) set out a range of comparators with qualifications in other countries specified by regulation..
Amendment 139, in clause 125, page 71, line 26, after achievement, insert and knowledge.
Amendment 37, in clause 125, page 71, line 28, at end insert
(c) maintain standards..
Amendment 42, in clause 125, page 71, line 28, at end insert
(c) sets out a range of comparators with qualifications in other countries specified by regulation..
Amendment 38, in clause 125, page 71, line 28, at end insert
(3A) For the purposes of subsections (2)(c) and (3)(c), Ofqual shall publish annually its methodology for determining whether standards have been maintained over periods of (a) 20 years, (b) ten years and (c) five years..
Amendment 62, in clause 125, page 71, line 28, at end insert
(c) allow for an objective assessment of how educational standards have changed over time..
Amendment 63, in clause 125, page 71, line 28, at end insert
(3A) In order to deliver the assessments standards objectives, Ofqual shall undertake, within 18 months of its establishment, a full review of changes in assessment standards since 1988..
Amendment 64, in clause 125, page 71, line 30, at end insert
and in the independence, objectivity and credibility of Ofqual..
Amendment 219, in clause 125, page 71, line 30, at end insert over time.
Amendment 65, in clause 125, page 71, line 30, at end insert
and in pursuit of this objective Ofqual shall carry out each year sample testing of cohorts at Key Stage 2, 3 and 4 in English and Maths on a basis that will facilitate credible evaluation of changes in levels of achievement in these subjects over time..
Amendment 427, in clause 125, page 71, line 34, leave out and.
Amendment 428, in clause 125, page 71, line 36, at end insert , and
(d) the range of criteria and indicators which underpin any attainment and achievement tables published by Ofqual..
Amendment 557, in clause 125, page 71, line 37, leave out regulated qualifications are provided and insert the market for regulated qualifications operates.
Amendment 32, in clause 125, page 71, line 37, after provided, insert on a timely basis and.
Amendment 335, in clause 125, page 72, line 2, at end insert
(7) The timeliness objective is to ensure that Ofqual carries out its functions in a timely manner that facilitates the delivery of qualifications on time..
Amendment 61, in clause 125, page 72, line 2, at end add
(7) The educational standards and performance objective is to monitor educational standards and performance as a whole in England, to report on how standards and performance are changing over time, and to make comparisons between educational standards and performance in England and in other OECD countries.
(8) In order to deliver the educational standards objective, Ofqual shall carry out sample testing on an annual basis in selected subjects, and shall report annually on changes in educational standards and performance in England and between England and other OECD countries..
Amendment 31, in clause 125, page 72, line 2, at end add
(7) Ofqual shall conduct annually a poll of a statistically significant sample of secondary school students to determine the proportion of students who believe that students work harder than ever to gain specified qualifications..
Amendment 39, in clause 125, page 72, line 2, at end insert
(7) Ofqual shall conduct annually a poll of a statistically significant sample of secondary school teachers to determine the proportion of teachers who believe that students work harder than ever to gain specified qualifications..
Amendment 43, in clause 125, page 72, line 2, at end add
(7) For the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of Ofqual in carrying out its duties in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c), Ofqual shall establish specific and measurable success criteria for these objectives..
Amendment 81, in clause 125, page 72, line 2, at end add
(7) In delivering its efficiency duty, Ofqual shall publish annually the criteria that will be used to make judgements about the efficiency of regulated qualifications..
Amendment 35, in clause 162, page 88, line 37, at end insert
and the outcome of the specific and measurable success criteria established in section 125(7).

David Laws: For those who are keen to make rapid progress, that list of amendments suggests that clause 125 is another part of the Bill with which we have serious concerns that we want to raise this evening. Indeed, it is arguably even more important in its impact on Ofquals role as well as its governance and independence than schedule 9 and clause 124. Clause 125 addresses the crucial objectives that it must meet as a regulator, and subsection (1) sets out those objectives, which are:
(a) the qualifications standards objective,
(b) the assessments standards objective,
(c) the public confidence objective,
(d) the awareness objective, and
(e) the efficiency objective.
With all those objectives, one would have thought that the Government would have covered the main concerns relating to the standards that could be expected of a body such as Ofqual. Unfortunately, they have not set the right objectives for Ofqual and, in particular, they have defined too narrowly Ofquals role in assessing standards. It is for that reason that we do not believe that Ofqual, in its existing form, will be successful in doing what the Secretary of State seems to want and ending the annual debate about standards in British examinations and dumbing down.
As we have said on other occasions, we are particularly disappointed that the Government have not addressed many of the criticisms of standards set out in the excellent report by the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families, entitled Testing and Assessment. The Committee was clear about the potential variation between the apparent education standards that are highlighted by the regulated qualifications that we have in this country and the underlying measures of educational performance, standards and effectiveness. In paragraph 250, the Committee concluded that
the Government has failed to address the issue of the standards themselves. In the context of the current testing system, with its ever-changing curriculum and endless test reforms, no regulator, however independent, can assure assessment standards as they are not capable of accurate measurement using the data available. Until the Government allows for standardised sample testing for monitoring purposes, the regulator will be left without the tools required to fulfil its primary function.
Essentially, the Committee argued that because examination standards and the nature of examinations had changed so much over time, and because of the pressure of comparability brought about by test reform, the targets set by the Government and the different assessment standards used at different times, it was impossible to use one examination, or even a number of examinations, to form an objective assessment of standards over time or at any point in time. It is because of the fundamental uncertainty in the publics mind, and in the debate on education standards about whether the results of examinations tell us something about educational standards per se, teaching to the test, the dumbing down of qualifications and assessment, or some other change in the mechanism that creates test resultsthat includes the increased focus because of Government strategies to force school improvementthat we have the debate about dumbing down each year. Because of all that, the public have no confidence in results as a measure of educational standards.
In their response to the Committees report, the Government were commendably honest. In paragraph 50, on page 12, they say not only that they do not accept the Committees recommendations on sample testing but, in commendably clear terms, that
Ofquals role is not to monitor education standards as a whole; it is to regulate the qualifications and assessments which are one of the means by which those standards are measured.
That is extremely clear and one of the reasons why we are unhappy with these measures. Essentially, we believe that there needs to be a body that is able to monitor and track standards over time. That body should be able to ensure that different qualifications are consistent between themselves and over time through the way in which it measures standards as well as measuring those standards separately from changes in the qualifications.
One of our concerns when we took evidence on this matter a couple of weeks ago was whether Ofqual would be ableeven over timeto develop into a more independent body capable of the wider role that the Government do not presently envisage in monitoring overall educational standards. Our amendments seek to address the wider role that we think Ofqual should have, giving it powers and duties to carry out the sample cohort testing that we think will be necessary to create an assessment of what is happening to underlying educational standards.
When we took evidence on this issue we had ambiguous and arguably mutually inconsistent statements from those who gave evidence. On 3 March we heard from Kathleen Tattersall of Ofqual, who indicated that Ofqual does not necessarily need an explicit power in this area. She said:
My understanding of the legislation is that we are not precluded from such thoughts down the line.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 66, Q175.]
However, she did not think it necessary to put those powers in this particular Bill. I would hope that if Ofqual was determined to prove itself to be a regulator and watchdog with teeth, it would want to take those powers and would push to do so. I was reassured by Kathleen Tattersalls view that the legislation did not preclude Ofqual pursuing that type of strategy over a period of time. That was not what we were told by the right hon. Member for South Dorset when we took evidence from him on 10 March. When he was questioned about sample testing, he said:
As Ministers, we want to decide whether it is appropriate to hold standardised sampling tests whereby the same test is taken every year by different cohorts of children.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2009; c. 163, Q375.]
In other words, the right hon. Gentleman did not think it appropriate that Ofqual should simply take such powers of its own accord. Clearly the Minister felt, for whatever reason, that it would be the duty and responsibility of Ministers to be clear whether cohort testing was used, as well as the existing qualifications testing, so that we could figure out whether standards were improving or declining over time.
Then, however, a couple of questions later we heard from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, who was much more open to the possibility of using the type of standardised sampling testing that her colleague, the Minister for Schools and Learners, the right hon. Member for South Dorset, appeared to have ruled out just a few questions before. The hon. Lady had said:
There is nothing in the Bill preventing Ofqual from doing standardised sampling if that is the way that it wishes to fulfil its duties. It will be up to Ofqual to decide whether that is the best way.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2009; c. 163, Q378.]
The hon. Lady went on to make it clear that there is nothing to stop Ofqual carrying out sample testing if it wishes to do so. I was encouraged by the hon. Ladys openness to the possibility that Ofqual might want to do that, because it indicates that she might have in the back of her mind the possibility that Ofqual may over time develop into a body that is able to take a wider view of its responsibilities in relation to monitoring standards. Some amendments touch directly on this. However, I would appreciate clarification from Ministers on what the actual position is. Is it the Portsmouth, North position, which is thatthough this is not embedded in the Billit is perfectly acceptable if Ofqual want to carry out this type of standardised testing? Or is the position as described from Dorset South, which is that it is appropriate only for Ministers to make such decisions?
When I had a conversation with Ofqual some months ago, it seemed to me that although it had not necessarily thought through this issue in detail it was at least open to the possibility that, in time, it might use such measures. At the very least, I want to ensure that the Government are clear that if Ofqual wishes to do so then it should be allowed to do so.
One issue that is crucial and ties together a number of these amendments is what we mean by educational standards. We have heard from the Governments response to the Select Committee report, that the Bill and the establishment of Ofqual is designed to create a body not to objectively look at educational standards as a whole, but to regulate the existing qualifications framework. The potential for differences between what is implied from changes in exam results in terms of regulators qualifications and what might be assumed about underlying standards is very important and quite topical.
I noticed at the end of last week that Mike Creswell, the director-general of the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance, issued a number of public comments and warnings about the introduction of the modular system for GCSEs, which is being brought in from September. The modular system will allow the GCSEs to be taken over a period of time, module by module. Moreover, it will allow for quite a number of retakes. I cannot remember exactly how many, but potentially quite a few. Dr. Creswell said that pass rates rise when a modular system is introduced. He said that such a rise would lead to direct concerns about standards. He referred to the widespread view that standards are being eroded.
Dr. Creswell pointed to international evidence that suggested that modular exams increased the results. He said that everywhere in the world, pass rates seem to rise when a modular system is introduced. Such a rise is not particular to GCSEs and A levels. He went on to mention how students can achieve higher results, which creates the appearance of educational standards improving, when modular qualifications are introduced. We took evidence from Katherine Tattersall on that issue when she was in front of the Committee. I asked her if she would
expect a cohort with the same abilities that had previously gone through under the old qualification to get the same broad distribution of grades in the new examination, even if its composition, modules and coursework has changed?
Kathleen Tattersalls first answer was rather ambiguous. However, once I said that she could assume that the abilities of the cohort were identical to those of the previous cohort that had taken examinations under a non-modular system, Kathleen Tattersall replied by saying:
Assuming that they are identical
in other words, the cohort
in a very large cohort, you would expect a broadly similar pattern, even if there are some shifts because of the nature of the curriculum change or the accessibility of the examination, modules or whatever.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 78, Q204.]
That was a relatively clear answer with studied ambiguity around the edges. It was a lot clearer than the Ministers response to the same question. This is not some sort of theoretical question that is not going to emerge in the very near future. This is an issue that will arise in the very near future when the modular qualifications come in. If exam results rise, there is bound to be the suggestion that it is due to a dumbing down and a change in the assessment for these particular examinations. If we cannot get a clear view from the Minister on whether or not the intention is, as Kathleen Tattersall said, to keep the broad grade distribution similar after modular examinations come in or on whether the Government will allow the examination results to rise, as Mike Creswell suggested last week, we really will be in a horrific muddle in terms of what we mean by examination standards. Moreover, it may erode confidence in examination standards and in the job that Ofqual does to maintain those standards over a period of time. That challenge will arise very early in Ofquals period as an independent regulator, so meeting it will be crucial in determining if there is going to be confidence in the job that Ofqual does.
In that regard, I would like to draw attention to the explanatory notes to the Bill and to some of the comments in them about the job that Ofqual will be expected to do. In particular, I would like to draw attention to paragraphs 342 and 343, where there are extensive comments on what the duties of Ofqual will actually mean in relation to maintaining standards.
If you do not mind, Mrs. Humble, I will just read briefly some of those comments for the convenience of the Committee and for the record. Paragraph 342 of the explanatory notes says:
Ofqual must perform its functions with the aim of ensuring that comparable qualifications and assessments  whether they are contemporaneous or delivered at different times  indicate a consistent level of attainment. If the requirements of a qualification have changed over time, perhaps because the requirements of the industry they relate to have evolved (this will be a particular issue in the IT industry, for example), it may be that a modern qualification is not comparable with its predecessor and therefore that Ofqual does not have to secure a consistent level of attainment. But if two qualifications are comparable, Ofqual must act to ensure that they do indicate a consistent level of attainment.
When the Minister responds later, I would be particularly grateful to know if this paragraph should be interpreted as meaning that, for example, in the case of modular qualifications there would be a duty to act to ensure a consistent level of attainment between the modular qualification and the predecessor non-modular qualification, or if the modular qualification in some way constitutes a new qualification, where there might be a permanent ratcheting up in the results that are accepted.
In paragraph 343, there is a description of the job that Ofqual will have to do, which is just as intriguing when it says:
The standards of qualifications and assessments  the benchmarks against which learners are measured  are not the same thing as the standards of education more broadly. Standards in this first sense are like the height of a hurdle, and Ofquals objective is to keep that height consistent between comparable qualifications and assessments. Whilst it is generally a policy objective of the Government to improve the quality of teaching and learning such that the number of people able to jump the hurdle increases (which is how the term standards is more commonly used), that is not a concern of Ofquals under its standards objectives.
So I would also like to be clear about precisely what that means and to what extent Ofqual will concentrate on comparability between qualifications that are available at any point in time, rather than ensuring that there is confidence about the general level at which the hurdle is being set and whether or not that hurdle is changing, in terms of its height, over time.
Those are two of our principal concerns. First, there is the fact that Ofquals role has been defined in such a narrow way, regulating specific qualifications rather than standards as a whole. Secondly, I would suggest that there is ambiguity and confusion in the Government about what the maintenance of standards, even in regulated qualifications, means over time.
Therefore, I would like to address some of the specific amendments, taking into account the fact that some of the comments I have already made really explain why we have tabled some of them.
Amendments 60 and 61 would add an overall responsibility for maintaining educational standards to Ofquals objectives. In other words, they would add to the five objectives, which are currently set down in clause 125(1)(a) to (e), a clearer objective for maintaining educational standards over time. We think that that is absolutely crucial if Ofqual is to do the job that most people would expect it to do, rather than this much narrower job that the Government have given it to do.
Amendment 61 would not only make it clear that there had to be an educational standards and performance objective, but would place a duty on Ofqual to carry out sample testing annually in selected subjects and to report on the changes in educational standards over time, comparing not only the standards in any one year with those of previous years, but standards in the United Kingdom with those in other OECD countries. We know that the Governments line on that is that Ofsted is supposed to be carrying out an evaluation of school standards, but if the Minister is fair-minded and reasonable, she will not consider that Ofsted is remotely carrying that out or trying to carry it out in the way envisaged in amendment 61, nor will she try to argue that the international surveys of educational performance are carried out on a reliable and consistent enough basis to serve as an excuse for Ofqual not doing the work itself. Those two amendments are extremely important to the wider role that we want Ofqual to have.
Amendment 62 would add to Ofquals objective for assessment standards a duty to ensure that its regulated assessments allowed for the monitoring of changing standards. In clause 125(3)(b), the objective set down in relation to assessment standards is that there should be
a consistent level of attainment (including over time) between comparable assessments.
Our point is that those assessments need to be not just about comparable assessments and comparable qualifications; they also need to be invariant to the changes in the composition or assessment standards for particular qualifications.
Amendment 63 would add the duty that Ofqual should review changes in assessment standards to date as part of its objectives. That is a very important point if Ofqual is to have any credibility in relation to the debate about what has happened to educational standards in the last decade or so. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned a number of studies that have commented on the change in educational standards in the last decade or so and he cited some quite important and independent evidence from commentators who believe that grades in GCSE, A-level and other qualifications today are not comparable to the grades from five, 10 or 15 years ago. For Ofqual to do its job effectively, there must be an expectation that it will not only try to make sensible judgments going forward, but will be able to inform us about what has been happening to standards in recent years, which is bound to be of public interest for a long time.
Amendment 64 would ensure that Ofqual had to demonstrate its independence and objectivity as part of the public confidence objective. In clause 125(4), there is a duty
to promote public confidence in regulated qualifications and regulated assessment arrangements.
It is vital that Ofqual delivers confidence not only in regulated qualifications, but in Ofqual as a body in terms of its independence, the integrity of those who work for it and its ability to challenge the Government, and in terms of the judgment that it makes about standards being broad and meaningful, not narrow and restricted in the way that the Government seem to envisage.
Amendment 65 would place an additional duty on Ofqual to carry out cohort testing to assess changes in standards over time. Depending on ones point of view, it either complements or overlaps with amendment 61. Amendment 219, which

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming

David Laws: Unless there is any pressure from the Committee for me to recap my speech, I will finish up on the amendments that we were discussing. We were up to amendment 219, which would add, to Ofquals objective of promoting public confidence in qualification, an assessment of standards over time, so that we are not looking at just one particular point. That would clarify clause 125 and the duties of Ofqual as they stand.
Amendments 427 and 428 would add a duty on Ofqual to publish the criteria that it may use for any attainment and achievement tables. That raises the important issue of whether the existing tables, which are generally produced by the Department, should be published with the scrutiny of Ofqual, and indeed, by Ofqual. It also invites the Government to consider the degree of openness about how those tables are pulled together and how the assessments are achieved.
Although some of the existing league table information that is published is imperfect in many respects, it is important, in terms of the public debate and accountability to parents. It would be useful if the details of the calculations involved were brought into the public domain. Proper publication of the criteria, with the opportunity for general academic and statistical debate, would potentially shine a light on the extremely grey area, with its huge impact on schools and colleges. The transfer of that function from the DCSF to the new regulator would also remove yet another area of suspicion from the public debate about standards, thereby increasing public confidence as well as meeting the awareness objective that amendments 427 and 428 deal with. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see the benefit, not only of being open about the existing tables that have been published, but in considering and responding to the possibility, at some future stage, of having the tables and the information published by Ofqual, rather than by the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
I would liketo save timeto comment briefly on the amendments that have been tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Amendments 334, 32 and 335 are about supporting the crucial timeliness objective, which bears on the issue of ensuring that Ofqual is not involved in rushing through qualifications that have not been properly considered. We will strongly support those amendments if the hon. Gentleman wishes to push them to a Division. Amendments 36 and 37 touch on the issue of the maintenance of standards, and we strongly support those amendments. They seek to clarify what is meant by the existing provisions in clause 125, which talk about standards between comparable regulated qualifications. We support amendments 41 and 42, which are about international comparisons, and amendment 38, which would require Ofqual to publish the standards that it uses on methodology. We have signed the hon. Gentlemans amendment 557 on the market for regulated qualification to ensure that it has the characteristics of a market. We also support amendments 43, 81 and 35, which would require Ofqual to have measurable criteria to assess its success in meeting the various standards.
I hope that that has given some opportunity to raise what, we believe, are serious concerns about the objectives of Ofqual, and about the way in which it pursues those objectives. Without Government measures to address the concerns that we have, the establishment of Ofqual will be a failure and it will not bring about increased confidence in educational standards among the public and others, which should, after all, be the prime objective of this part of the Bill.

Nick Gibb: Clause 125 sets out the objectives and duties of the new Ofqual organisation. There has clearly been a change of policy since the decision to establish Ofqual was announced in September 2007, because in the initial impact assessment, published in December 2007, the approach set out was that Ofqual would be a high-level regulator. The impact assessment refers to
removing the duty...to examine each qualification specified by an awarding body
before it is accredited and placed on the national qualifications framework and the national database of accredited qualifications. The approach was to be to strengthen the focus on risk-based regulation, regulating at the highest level of the system and trusting awarding bodies to develop qualifications without micro-regulation but with robust monitoring systems in place. That approach seems to have been changed to the one in the DCSF letter of 10 October, which states:
Ofqual will be able to strike the right balance between regulating at the level of awarding bodies...and at the level of an individual qualification.
A brief explanation of the reasons for that change of policy would help the Committee in its deliberations on the clause.
Another oddity in the arrangements is the contorted explanation that the Government give for why the reforms are necessary. On the one hand, they say that standards have been rigorously maintained over the years and between exams, but on the other hand, they say that an independent regulator needs to be created to boost public confidence. That contortion ends up being a patronising view of public opinion and of employers and universities.
According to the Minister, the decline in public confidence is misplaced and is based on reading too many newspaper articles that are wrong. According to such a view, employers are wrong to complain about school leavers having lower levels of basic skills in literacy and maths; employers must simply have become more demanding in the skills that they are seeking. The independent schools are wrong to complain about GCSEs and their move to the IGCSE is, in the words of the Secretary of State, just a marketing tool. According to such a view, universities are wrong to say that they need remedial classes to bring new undergraduates up to minimum level of knowledge that they need to start university courses, because that is a consequence of the success of widening access.
Let me give one example of the sort of doublethink that I am talking about. Paragraph 4 of the DCSF September 2007 letter on a new model of regulation of qualifications states:
Over the last ten years, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority...has shown robust independence in its work as a regulator and has developed a system for assuring standards which is recognised internationally for its quality and reliability...The hard work of the QCA, and its fellow regulators, means that we can be confident that standards have been maintained.
Considering the QCAs robust independence and the Governments confidence that standards have been maintained, one wonders what the need for reform is. According to the Government, things are just dandy. However, that document goes on to state:
Yet once again, this summer, we had a public debate about standards in qualifications and tests  even as the QCA provided reassurance that standards had been maintained.
Well, the pesky public and their debateshow dare they have such opinions when the QCA provided reassurance.
The changes are all about finding a way of telling the public that standards are fine in a way that they will believe. That that is the prime object of new Ofqual was clear in the evidence of Kathleen Tattersall who said that
Ofqual had been set up...to ensure that there is a better understanding of the issue and to assure public confidence.
Later, she said
We have been set up to address issues of public confidence in the qualifications system.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c.70-71, Q184 and 185.]
I could spend the next 20 minutes listing report after report that demonstrates that standards in the main public exams have consistently been slipping over the years. Some examiners and educationalists even admit to it on the grounds that it is in support of a wider objective of widening access to qualifications and ensuring that pupils leave school with some evidence of achievement.
The 2007 study by the centre for evaluation and monitoring at Durham university is an important piece of work. It concluded:
It seems clear from the data presented here that candidates of comparable ability are being awarded higher grades each year, both at A level where the trend has been consistent and substantial since 1988, and at GCSE where the change seems smaller and more intermittent.
We know that those studies show that sixth-formers with the same ability awarded a C in the late 1980s would now be getting A. It is also clear that there is no consistency of standard between grades in different subjects. As Professor Tymms of the CEM at Durham said recently,
We need to recognise that an A in physics may not be the same as an A in theatre studies. These things are not equivalent and we need to take that on board.
Amendment 36 was therefore tabled to make Ofquals qualification standard explicit. It would add a duty to maintain standards. That is necessary because there appears to be some uncertainty about whether Ofqual is capable or even willing to fulfil the duty in clause 125(2)(b) which requires it to secure that qualifications
indicate a consistent level of attainment (including over time) between comparable regulated qualifications.
A newspaper story headlined, Exam standards body unsure how to prevent dumbing-down states:
In minutes leaked to a Sunday newspaper, Ofqual chairwoman Kathleen Tattersall said there was no clear picture of how to maintain standards when new style exams are brought in this summer...According to the Observer, when addressing Ofqual board members, Mrs Tattersall said the body and exam boards need to arrive at a clearer picture of what is meant by maintaining standards when the structure of qualifications changes.
These issues have implications for the revised A-levels, including the ASs in 2009, the new modular GCSEs and diplomas, she added.
The chairman of Ofqual is saying that the new modular GCSEs, compared with the GCSE before modularisation, will make it difficult to ensure that standards are maintained. Even in the first few months of its existence, while still a part of the QCA, Ofqual has been unable to prevent the QCA from pressing ahead with modularisation of GCSEs, despite the fact that one consequence of doing so was that Ofqual would not know how or whether it could establish that standards were being maintained.
Dr. Cresswell, whom the hon. Member for Yeovil also cited, is the director general of the exam board AQA. He said recently that the new modularised GCSE would be easier to pass because students can retake sections many times. The question is why Ofqual did not stop the QCA proceeding with modular GCSEs, particularly given the problems that they have caused with A levels.
Amendment 37 would amend clause 125(3) by adding the requirement to maintain standards in the assessment standard. Clause 125(3)(b) states that assessment should indicate consistency between comparable assessments. Consistency, like equality, can mean bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator, or it can mean levelling up. It appears that unless there is a statutory requirement to maintain standards, the Ofqual approach will be to level down.
In October last year, in response to reports that Edexcel was awarding C grades in its new science GCSE to pupils achieving only 20 per cent., Ofqual was asked to adjudicate after the three exam boards failed to reach agreement on the boundaries. According to The Guardian,
On August 7, Ofquals acting chief executive, Isabel Nisbet, wrote to AQAs director general Dr Mike Cresswell to say: For the sake of this year1s candidates, we consider it essential at this point to ensure the comparability of grade standards across awarding bodies...After considering various possibilities we have reluctantly concluded that the least problematic solution for this summer is for AQA to bring its grade C standards into line with the others
in other words, lower them. The article continues:
In a written reply, Cresswell said it would only do so on balance and under protest.
He wrote: AQA is extremely reluctant to adopt a standard for GCSE science which is less comparable with the past than it needs to be.

The Guardian went on to say,
He added that Ofqual had made the request of AQA rather than requesting the other awarding bodies to adopt standards more clearly in keeping with those of the past.
Dr. Cresswell told the Times Educational Supplement:
Im absolutely certain that standards between 2007 and 2008 could have been maintained more effectively.
In a separate statement he said,
The standard set for a Grade C on this years GCSE science examinations was not as close to the past grade C standard in science as we believe it could have been.
So Ofqual failed its first test of maintaining standards.
Amendments 41 and 42 require Ofqual to set out a range comparators with qualifications in other countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said in a recent speech at the Haberdashers Askes school,
We have asked Sir Richard Sykes, the former rector of Imperial College and one of our most successful scientists, to review our entire system of assessment and qualifications in this country and we have made it clear that his aim is to ensure once more that our exams are internationally competitive...That is why we would legislate to make the fixing of our exam standards to an international benchmark crucial to our programme of radical reform.
I know that when the Minister replies she will trot out the TIMSStrends in international mathematics and science studysurvey. That survey, of course, did not include France, Finland, Belgium, Ireland, Portugal or Spainexcept the Basque region. Denmark and Holland did not take part in the year 1 study. Most importantly, of 137 secondary schools, 11 refused to take part in this countrys sample which meant using substitute schools, thus undermining the theory of sampling, since it is likely to be the weaker schools that refuse to take part and not the proper average across all schools in this country. Even so, this country was still outperformed by Russia, Kazakhstan and Hungary as well as Singapore, Korea, Hong Kong and Japan. It is also striking that the TIMSS 2007 survey contrasts so starkly with the 2006 PISAprogramme for international student assessmentsurvey, in which the UK was ranked sixteenth, equal with Poland.
Amendment 139 would amend clause 125(3)(a) so that the assessment standards objective includes the requirement to promote the development of regulated assessment arrangements to give a reliable indication of knowledge as well as achievement. The explanatory note says that regulated assessment arrangements means arrangements made for assessing the progress of pupils at each key stage of the national curriculum and the early years foundation stage. We agree with the importance of such assessments giving a reliable indication of achievement, but it is equally important that they measure the level of knowledge a pupil has amassed.
There is considerable pressure from some in the education establishment to move towards a skills-based curriculum, where pupils focus on acquiring relevant competencies rather than a store of knowledge. Indeed the new key stage 3 curriculum has already taken significant steps in that direction. The key stage 3 section of the national curriculum website says,
If young people are to be prepared for the future they need to develop essential skills and qualities for learning, life and employment. These include skills that relate to learning in subjects as well as other more generic, transferable skills. A dynamic, forward-looking curriculum creates opportunities for learners to develop as self-managers, creative thinkers, reflective learners, problem-solvers, team workers, independent learners, and effective communicators.
At the heart of the outcomes of that skills-based approach to the curriculum is the belief that knowledge is less important because students can always look up a particular fact. What is more important, it is argued, is a focus on generic skills such as communication ability or competency in research, which can be applied to each problem in life that a person encounters. That is often called learning how to learn.
Of course, that analysis is only partly correct. School cannot equip a person with the sum total of knowledge that they will ever need and people should be ready to acquire more knowledge as they progress through life. The point we disagree with is that abilities or skills can be taught in disembodied form, rather than acquired as a product of gaining more knowledge. The American academic, E.D. Hirsch, has looked at that issue and, in an article in the American Educator, wrote:
The progressive theory that students should gain knowledge through a limited number of projects instead of by taking courses in separate subjects is based on the following reasoning. If you learn a bunch of facts in separate, academic courses you will passively acquire a lot of inert, fragmented knowledge. You will be the victim of something called rote learning. But if you engage in integrated, hands-on projects you will achieve integrated, real-world knowledge. By this more natural approach you will automatically absorb the relevant facts you need.
However, one learns by acquiring knowledge, which gives rise to learning how to learn. One will learn to think scientifically, mathematically and historically. One will learn, the progressives claim, all-purpose transferable skills such as questioning, analysing, synthesising, interpreting and, of course, problem solving. Indeed, a well-educated person will acquire

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming

Nick Gibb: I was saying that we on the Opposition Benches disagree that abilities or skills can be taught in disembodied form rather than acquired as a product of gaining more knowledge. Hirsch says that
the consensus view in psychology is that those skills are gained mainly through broad knowledge of a domain. Intellectual skills tend to be domain-specific...the important question is: How do we best prepare our students for lifelong learning? Is the in-depth study of a few topics, practice with a variety of thinking skills, and access to the Internet the best formula? Cognitive psychology suggests it is not.
There is a consensus in cognitive psychology that it takes knowledge to gain knowledge. Those who repudiate a fact-filled curriculum on the grounds that kids can always look things up miss the paradox that de-emphasizing factual knowledge actually disables children from looking things up effectively. To stress process at the expense of factual knowledge hinders children from learning to learn. Yes, the internet has placed a wealth of information at our fingertips. But to be able to use that informationto absorb it, to add to our knowledgewe must already possess a storehouse of knowledge. That is the paradox disclosed by the cognitive research.
The move to a competence-based curriculum over the past five years under the aegis of the QCA has been one of the principal causes of the downgrading of our exam and education system in recent years. Ensuring that children leave compulsory education with a minimum store of knowledge, concepts and ideas is vital to enabling them to participate in and contribute to modern culture and life.
Amendment 38 would add a new specification to the assessment standards objective. It would require Ofqual to publish annually its methodology for determining whether standards had been maintained on assessment and qualifications over periods of 20, 10 and five years. The measure would enhance the objectivity and transparency of Ofquals work, leading it to be a more effective and trusted regulator. I have already cited the YELLIS and ALIS studies that provide evidence that grade boundaries have been slipping. The evidence for that viewpoint is not just academic; it is also powerfully reinforced by the experiences of key groups with an insight and interest in this area of policy.
The CEM at Durham university published a briefing book on the 2008 GCSEs and A-levels, giving the results of a survey of members of the Institute of Directors and university tutors. The 2008 survey discovered:
Only 12 per cent. of IoD members feel the Governments performance on education and skills has been favourable to business over the last 10 years. 55 per cent. believe it to have been unfavourable. IOD members believe the quality of education provided by schools, colleges and universities has declined over the last ten years. The deterioration is perceived to be most acute at school level. 27 per cent. of directors thought the quality of education in schools had improved, compared to 47 per cent. believing it had got worse.
The survey also discovered that
employers consider young peoples proficiency in a range of skills has weakened over the past decade, particularly in writing and mathematics.
The report also included an investigation into the views of the university sector. It stated:
In a sample survey of 100 university admissions tutors, 72 per cent. thought the quality of undergraduates beginning a course in their department had either remained the same (32 per cent.) or deteriorated (41 per cent.) over the course of their involvement with admissions. 28 per cent. thought the quality of students had risen.
That direct experience of the school system is the real reason why there is concern about dumbing down.
Ofqual cannot succeed in its task of restoring trust to the qualifications system simply by virtue of being independent; there is a much wider and deeper malaise. The only way to address it is by directly assessing the issues that matter to people and, in particular, by analysing standards over the past 20 years and convincing the public that the methodology is truly objective. That is why amendment 38 must be agreed to.
Amendments 31 and 39 would ensure that Ofqual continues to conduct an important poll that it has been conducting for the past few years. Ofqual has been asking a sample of students whether they have to work harder to gain specified qualifications than previous generations of students. In this years poll, 48 per cent. said that they work harder than ever compared with 60 per cent. in 2007. A similar poll asked teachers the same question about their students; almost two-thirds of teachers said that students passed with less effort than previous generations. It is a useful poll because, among other indicators, it provides a useful tracking indicator of standards.
Amendments 43 and 81 would ensure that Ofqual publishes the criteria that it uses to make judgments on the efficiency of regulated qualificationsjudgments that it is required to make under the efficiency objective listed in clause 125(1)(e). The Association of Colleges, which inspired amendment 81 said that
The AOC particularly notes that Ofqual will be looking at the sums payable to bodies awarding or authenticating qualifications, and whether they represent value for money. Colleges, currently paying approximately £170 million a year in exam fees, welcome the assessment. However, we would appreciate clarification on the criteria that will be used to make judgments.
If the Minister could provide that clarification, it would be helpful to the Committee and the association.
Amendments 334 and 335 would insert a new timeliness objective into Ofquals list of objective under clause 125(1). Amendment 32 would add to the efficiency objective the requirement to ensure that qualifications are provided both efficiently and on a timely basis. That amendment was inspired by Cambridge Assessment, which stated:
It is crucial that teachers, colleges and schools are able to prepare properly for new qualifications. The timeliness of the delivery of a qualification, its accreditation and critical decisions, is one of the most basic but important factors in the development process.
It went on to say that
Nobody wants to see a recurrence of the introduction of Curriculum 2000, which due to compressed timetables, saw courses starting before textbooks were printed. Indeed, the new A Level specifications containing the new A* grade were delivered to schools before the actual mechanism for grading had been settled. Delays experienced early in the development process can cause significant problems later on when tasks have to be inappropriately hurried.
Finally, amendment 557 would broaden the scope of the efficiency objective to include a market for regulated qualifications rather than regulated qualifications alone. We agree that Ofqual should have an efficiency objective and that it should include ensuring that payments made to awarding bodies represent value for money. On 7 April last year, The Times reported that schools and colleges were spending more on exams than on textbooks. The figures came to a total of about £700 million: £400 million was spent on fees to exam boards, and £300 million was spent on invigilators. One school head is cited as saying that over five years the schools exam costs had risen from £30,000 a year to £100,000 a year, despite the number of pupils remaining the same.
There is no question but that it is a serious matter for schools, and that it is likely to get worse as we move towards the modular system for GCSEs. The amendment would require Ofqual to take a broader look at the market for qualifications, which would give it greater scope to analyse such matters. Edexel is strongly in favour of the change, and in its briefing it stated that Ofqual will not be able to deliver on its aims unless it is given the remit of regulating the qualifications system as a whole, rather than a narrow remit of regulating qualifications providers. In particular, Ofquals value for money objective requires that it looks at how qualifications are procured by schools and colleges, requiring that broader remit.
Our view is that if Ofqual is to regulate the provision of qualifications, and is to take into account the fees charged to schools, it makes sense to expand the remit of the efficiency objective so that it includes a market for qualifications. That would allow Ofqual to take proper account of all the issues, which is likely to make it a more effective regulator.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We have heard two interesting contributions from the hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and for Yeovil, to which I listened carefully. We went over the ground that we covered in the previous debate, but the issue is obviously something about which the two hon. Gentlemen feel strongly. I thought that under the previous clause we had all agreed that there was a need for an independent regulator, but that was not so clear as the discussion progressed.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said that the measure was a change of policy and that originally we were having a high-level regulator. There has been no change of policy. We always intended that Ofqual would be risk-based, and would intervene and accredit when it needed to, but that it would no longer be required to. I could trade statistics and reports with the hon. Gentleman in the same way as I did when we discussed the previous clause, but I am sure that the Committee will be relieved to know that I do not intend to do so.
I wish to pick up on a few issues. Both hon. Gentlemen spoke about the modular GCSEs. Ofqual will have to ensure consistency between modular GCSEs and their non-modular predecessors. It will be part of its remit.

David Laws: I am perhaps intervening slightly rapidly on the Minister, but the words that she uses are not informative. Will she clarify the doubt in the debate? If we have two cohorts with identical educational characteristics, one of whom is pre-modularisation and one of whom is post-modularisation, would the hon. Lady expect them both to have the same level of grades as part of Ofquals duty to keep standards steady over time?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: In some ways, that will be a matter for Ofqual to decide. Its remit is to maintain consistency of standards. It may well be that when it has looked at all the evidence, and if it can get to that mythical cohort of exactly the same children, which is not an easy situation to reach, it might decide that that is the case. The objective of Ofqual is to ensure consistency between the modular GCSEs and their non-modular predecessors. How it does that will be up to Ofqual. Only one resit of a module is allowed and all the modules are at full GCSE standard.
A question was asked about the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance, Mike Cresswell, and the GCSE science last year. I wish to correct one important point and emphasise what was said by Kathleen Tattersall in the evidence session, which was that
Ofqual asked nobody to lower standards.
We should pick that up. The most important matter that came out of the session from Mike Cresswell, Greg Watson and Kathleen Tattersall was that they all agreed that, when Ofqual was asked to look at the issue, it was probably already too late. The important thing is that the criteria are set at the beginning of a qualification, and that is the time at which all of them agreed that the work should be done.

Nick Gibb: Did Isabel Nesbit not write to the three exam boards saying that they had to reach parity between them and that they had to go to the lower level Edexcel leveland not the level set by AQA? Therefore, AQA had to lower its grading boundary to match the other two boards.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: As I understand it, the exam boards were asked to be consistent. I am merely quoting Kathleen Tattersall when she said that
Ofqual asked nobody to lower standards. [Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 78, Q204.]
Ofqual asked the boards to reach a consistent standard. The three different bodies had different views of what the standards were and they had to arrive at a consistent view. It is clear that Ofqual was not asking AQA to lower its standards, but to be consistent with the other two boards because people have different views of what standards are, which is probably what our debate has been about.

Nick Gibb: The three exam boards could not reach agreement. They went to Ofqual, which reluctantly said that it was for AQA to bring its grade C standards into line with the others and that it was not for the other two boards to raise their standards in line with AQA. In my view and, I think, that of the public, that is a lowering of standards.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Or it is a consistency of standards. There were three awarding bodies, all of which had robust processes, and one was asked to come into line with the other two. However, the important point is that we get it right at the beginning of the process and not the end. That was the point made by both the awarding bodies and Kathleen Tattersall.

Nick Gibb: The reason why we are concerned is that at its first opportunity to make a crucial high-level decision, Ofqual, instead of making the decision in a direction that would cause standards to risethat is, requesting two boards to raise their standards of grading to match the other boarddecided that the board with the higher standard should lower its grading. That is dumbing down. Our concern is that Ofqual will do that in future, based on the one precedent that we have of its experience so far.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: It might be helpful if I asked Kathleen Tattersall to write to the hon. Gentleman to explain what she meant in her evidence. Obviously, I am quoting a third party. As I told him, my view is that there were three awarding bodies, all of which had robust processes, that could not come to an agreement, and one fitted in with the other two because, as I understand it, they could not decide among the three of them. However, it might be helpful if Kathy explains the remarks that she made in her evidence and expands on them.
I will not list Ofquals objectives, as I think that we are all clear on them, but the five strategic objectives set out a clear role for Ofqual to work in the public interest on matters relating to standards, confidence and efficiency. I do not think that the legislation should go into detail about how Ofqual could go about delivering on its remit; it should make it clear what Ofqual must achieve and give it the powers and freedom to get on with it. For that reason, I will resist the amendments.
On the specifics, I will first speak to the amendments that specify in too much detail how Ofqual should perform its functions, then to those that would give Ofqual too broad a remit. Finally, I will address the amendments that, in my view, simply duplicate provisions that are in the Bill and are, therefore, unnecessary.
Amendments 31 and 39 would require Ofqual to carry out surveys. Ofqual may well wish to do such surveys; it will certainly want to conduct research as its predecessor bodies did and as interim Ofqual has continued to do. The Bill gives Ofqual the power to do all those things. We should not start choosing on its behalf the most appropriate way to achieve its objectives. When Ofqual reports to Parliament, it will have to satisfy Parliament that it has done what it should have done, using whatever tools it feels is right for the job.

David Laws: That is an important and helpful statement, I think. However, is the Minister therefore contradicting the Minister for Schools and Learners, who essentially said in evidence that it was up to Ministers to decide whether to hold standardised sampling tests in the way that she described?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come to sample testing later in my remarks, when I will explain why there is no actual difference between what the Minister for Schools and Learners and I said.
On amendments 38, 41, 42, 63, 427 and 428, we would certainly expect Ofqual to publish evidence underpinning its conclusions on the maintenance of standards. Where appropriate, we would expect it to consider lessons from other countries, but we do not want to pre-judge the best way for it to gather or present that evidence. The public confidence and awareness objectives imply that Ofqual must carry out its work openly and credibly, or it will not be able to promote public confidence and awareness as it must. It will have to operate in that way anyway, so I do not think that we need to legislate for it.

David Laws: The Minister went through the amendments rather quickly, but I think that she touched on amendment 63, which invites Ofqual to reconsider educational standards over the past 20 or so years. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tabled amendment 38, which is similar. Is the Minister happy for Ofqual to do the job described in amendments 63 and 38?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I would envisage Ofqual doing its job. We are asking it to look at and measure standards over time, so it might well wish to go back as well as forwards.
Both hon. Gentlemen touched on the Governments achievement and attainment tables. It is appropriate for Ofqual to have a role in looking at how those qualifications are scored, because it would help to develop confidence in the objectivity of the judgments. However, we do not need to put those provisions in the Bill, mainly because achievement and attainment tables are not statutory, and it would not be appropriate to make them so. However, we are reviewing them in light of the proposals to develop a school report card and the responses on which we are consulting. We will discuss with the interim Ofqual what its and, perhaps, the QCDAs role should be under the new arrangements for the provision of information on school performance.
Amendments 43 and 81 would require Ofqual to establish specific and measurable success criteria in relation to some of its objectives. Amendment 43 would apply to three of the objectivesqualifications standards, assessment standards and public confidenceand amendment 81 would apply to the efficiency objective. Amendment 35 would require Ofqual to publish the outcome of the criteria in its annual report. The interim Ofqual agrees that it will need to do that, and is planning to identify measurable success criteria, and report on them, including in its annual report. However, we do not need to include in the legislation a detailed requirement that Ofqual should behave so. It will be accountable to Parliament, and Select Committees in particular are sure to make arrangements to scrutinise Ofquals work and assess what it must achieve. That means that Ofqual must ensure that it can demonstrate what it has achieved.

Nick Gibb: I am pleased to hear that Ofqual has agreed that there will be specific and measurable success criteria, and that they will be reported on. Will the hon. Lady say where that has been set out in a public document, so that I can have a look at it? I might have read it already and simply forgotten, but could I have the name of the document, so that I can check that it is on the public record?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman has that information. We will ask Ofqual to write to him with its commitment. We will also ask Ofqual to consider commissioning, after three years, an independent review of the reforms to assess what it has achieved. If Ofqual agrees to that, it will need to decide what performance measures it wants to set.
Amendments 60, 61, 62 and 65 would, in my view, create too wide a remit. They would all change Ofquals remit from that of a regulator of qualifications and assessments, which is a challenging enough role, to the impossible task of coming to a single view about standards of performance across the system. We are dealing with two different senses of the word standards: the standard of assessment, which is the difficulty of a qualification, and the standard of performance, which is the achievement of learners. Ofquals role will be to monitor the standards of qualifications and assessments, and to ensure that they are consistent. We do not say that its role will be to monitor standards of performance. The chair of interim Ofqual and the director general of the AQA awarding body indicated in their evidence to our Committee their view that such a remit would be too wide and would give Ofqual an enormously difficult brief. We agree with that, and we think that Ofquals remit should remain focused on regulation of qualifications and assessments.
Moving on to sample testing, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners said:
I am not sure whether sufficient amount would be gained by doing the standard sampling tests.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2009; c. 163, Q376.]
Ofqual could certainly use sample testing if it wished, but only in pursuit of the objectives that we have set out in the Bill. It might decide to do that to validate its achievement of the objective to maintain standards in comparable qualifications, for example, but it could not use sample testing as a way of checking on standards of performance, because as I explained that would go outside the remit that we believe Ofqual should have.

David Laws: I understand the Ministers point technically speaking, but will she explain in more detail why Ofqual might want to use sample testing to pursue the aims set down in the Bill rather than those that I would like it to pursue? Under what circumstances would it use sample testing to check the qualifications criteria?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Ofqual might wish to use sample testing to check the consistency of a qualification, going across. That would be within Ofquals remit, and it can use any method that it wishes to maintain the qualification standard objective. What is not in its remit are the wider standards of performance, which I know the hon. Gentleman would like it to have.
Finally, a number of the amendments are superfluous, such as amendments 36 and 37. The Bill already creates an obligation for Ofqual to secure that regulated qualifications and assessments indicate a consistent level of attainment over time. That catches the intention behind the amendmentsnamely, to maintain standards in qualifications and assessment. Therefore, the two amendments are not necessary.
Amendment 64 would give Ofqual the objective of promoting public confidence in its own independence and objectivity. With a remit to secure confidence in the qualifications and assessment system, Ofqual will obviously do that and does not need to be told to, so the amendment is not necessary.
Amendment 139 involves a change of wording, which is intended to ensure that Ofqual would have to consider the level of knowledge indicated by regulated assessment arrangements. As clause 125(3)(a) specifically relates to regulated assessment arrangements, the word achievement must mean the same as it does in the legislation that governs regulated assessmentsnamely, the Education Act 2002 and the Childcare Act 2006. In both those Acts, assessing the achievements of pupils and young children is defined as assessing what they have achieved in terms of gaining the knowledge, skills and understanding expected for the relevant stage of their education. Again, that covers what is in the amendment.
Amendment 219 would make it explicit that Ofquals public confidence objective refers to public confidence over time. However, the duty to promote public confidence must mean that Ofqual has to take a long-term view. Confidence cannot be created in a short period, and Ofqual would not be fulfilling its objective if it secured public confidence one year, but stopped worrying about it the next. In clause 125(2)(b), the Bill states that there should be
a consistent level of attainment (including over time).
Amendment 557 would make it explicit in the text of the Bill that qualifications in England and Northern Ireland are delivered through a market system, and would direct Ofqual to secure the efficient operation of that market. That is an unnecessary narrowing of Ofquals remit. We want to ensure that all aspects of qualifications delivery are efficient, not just the functioning of the market.
Finally on the superfluous amendments, amendments 334 and 335 would create and define a timeliness objective, with Ofqual having to carry out its functions in a timely manner that facilitates the delivery of qualifications on time. Similarly, amendment 32 would change Ofquals efficiency objective, requiring Ofqual to secure the provision of regulated qualifications on a timely basis. Clearly it will have to do all it can to do that, but there are two reasons why it should not be given it as a formal duty. First, inasmuch as it has control over when qualifications are delivered, that is already covered by its duty to perform its function efficiently and effectively. Secondly, timeliness is not an objective in itself; it is a means by which other objectives, such as public confidence, are achieved. For those reasons, I request that the hon. Member for Yeovil withdraws his amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that full response. I have some short comments to make. I thank the Minister for agreeing to ask the chair of Ofqual to write to members of the Committee about Kathleen Tattersalls comments in the evidence session, in which she said that it did not ask for the standards of the science GCSE set by AQA to be lowered. I look forward to receiving that letter.
I was encouraged when the Minister said that she would expect Ofqual to conduct studies that make comparisons with other countries. I shall look at her precise words when the record is published and come back to that issue later in the proceedings, because it is important for Ofqual to make those international comparisons.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I want to clarify for the hon. Gentleman that I was talking about international comparisons of qualifications.

Nick Gibb: That is what I understood. We strongly believe that comparing our qualifications with those of other countries is important in a globalized world in which people are competing for the same jobs and the same academics across the globe. We have to ensure that our qualifications match the best in the world.
I was encouraged when the Minister said that Ofqual would publish specific and measurable success criteria. Again, she said that she would ask Ofqual to expressly set that out in writing to members of the Committee or provide a reference to a published document in which we can see that commitment made publicly.
We still have concerns about other issues dealt with by amendments in the group. In particular, I intend to ask the Committee to divide on amendment 36, which inserts the important and specific objective of maintaining standards. With those few comments, I await hearing about what the hon. Member for Yeovil is going to do with amendment 60.

David Laws: We have had a good debate and I am grateful to the Minister for her patience in taking a large number of interventions, which were helpful, in some respects, in clarifying one or two points in the Bill. However, I am disappointed that she has rejected all of the amendments that we have tabled. Her objections to some of the amendments were based on the fact that they give Ofqual too big a task. We believe that Ofqual should have that task and that armoury to do its job, and, it appears, the Children, Schools and Families Committee agrees.
The Minister also indicated that she objected to some of the other amendments because they were too prescriptive in telling Ofqual what it should do. I gently remind the Minister of the debate on schedule 9, in which the Government were willing to put the time during which Ofqual would be obliged to review the composition of its committees in the Bill. If the Government are willing to be that prescriptive with Ofqual, the degree of prescriptiveness in some of the amendments was reasonable and more substantive than the detail put into schedule 9.
I am left with concerns, not only about the lack of robustness in Ofquals objectives in clause 125, which make us unable to support the whole clause, but also about the two points from my earlier comments. We have made progress with the Minister on sample testing and being able to measure educational standards over time. It is clear that the Minister does not want Ofqual to do that, but we do, which is why I will press amendment 60 to the vote. The Minister indicated that Ofqual would be allowed to commission sample testing provided that it is in pursuance of the Bills measures, rather than the type of approach that we want. I am not sure who will determine whether Ofquals sampling complies with the Bills measures or whether it is in pursuit of wider objectives, so it would be useful for that to be clarified. Given the length of the debate that we have had, I understand if the Minister would rather write to the Committee on that.
The thrust of Government thinking in relation to modular GCSEs is also unclear. The Minister has understandably indicated that that is an issue for Kathleen Tattersall, but it is also an issue for the Government. As it has been a key issue in this debate, will the Minister consider asking Kathleen Tattersall to write to the Committee with her view of the way in which Ofqual will seek to maintain standards in relation to modular GCSEs?
I want to press amendment 60 to a Division, and we also want a Division on clause 125, which we are unable to support for the reasons that we have given.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 36, in clause 125, page 71, line 23, at end insert
(c) maintain standards..(Mr. Gibb.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.(Ms Butler.)

Adjourned till Thursday 26 March at Nine oclock.